Lords Sitting of 21 June 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

East and Central Africa: Drought Relief
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the drought and its effects in East and Central Africa and whether they have any plans to help to minimise its consequences.?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are aware that certain countries in the region have suffered irregular rainfall and that crop prospects this year are poor. We have responded, either bilaterally or by supporting international action, to appeals for assistance from Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer and for his sympathetic response. May I ask whether he and the Government are aware that the drought in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana and Namibia is the worst for 50 years, that cattle are dying now, and unless something is done very quickly people also will be dying? Is he further aware that Mr. Mundia, the Prime Minister of Zambia, appealed to the FAO early in May to declare this area a disaster area so that United Nations organisations could go in, and are the British Government supporting this move at the FAO?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I was not aware that this was the worst drought in that part of the world for 50 years. But 1 would say that this area has irregular rainfall, to say the least. For example, last year in most of the countries to which the noble Lord has referred there were bumper crops, especially in Zimbabwe which still, I understand, has an export surplus. So far as the Food and Agricultural Organisation is concerned, no, it has not—and indeed I do not know whether it will—yet declared the region a disaster area, but of course Her Majesty's Government are in full and constant touch with the FAO on the subject.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, in referring to the export surplus, that Zimbabwe has exported, I think, 500,000 tonnes of maize to Zambia, Zaire, Mozambique and Botswana, but that its own maize production has been halved by the drought, and its cotton production is down by a third, so that the impression that he may have given about the export surplus is only because Zimbabwe has done this deliberately to help other countries?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, notwithstanding that, my understanding is that there is still sufficient grain in Zimbabwe to feed its people for the next year. The problem, as I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware, is transport. The Government have indeed given bilateral aid to Zimbabwe for transport for the distribution of maize, which I underline Zimbabwe still has.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, if I heard correctly, the Minister referred to international action to deal with this situation and British co-operation in that action. Can he tell the House what that international action is, and what is to be expected from it?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, the international action includes support for the EEC action, which is principally the supply of dried skimmed milk powder and grain, and also our contribution to the world food programme and the international emergency food reserve.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that simple, low-cost water supply schemes contribute a fairly permanent improvement to the quality of life in these areas? Would he say whether, and to what extent, the overseas development administration is financing such schemes? Is he also aware that there are many non-governmental organisations, such as SOS SAHEL, in which I am involved, who contribute a lot to these schemes? Would he say how the Government co-operate with these schemes and how they support them generally?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the problem with irrigation is that it tends to be rather high cost. I agree that there are low-cost forms, for example, surface irrigation; but, on the whole, irrigation requires water pipes, pumps, and Governments in developing countries are generally somewhat reluctant to commit funds to such schemes because the cost cannot be recouped from increased yields. I agree, however, that it would indeed mitigate the effects of drought such as we are discussing at the moment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that the voluntary fund operated under the auspices of the United Nations to which we are the second biggest contributors, having given £600,000, operates for exactly the point that the noble Baroness raised just now and has been most helpful in these kinds of cases?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for that supplementary. I most certainly agree.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, I understood the Minister to say that one of the measures this Government were taking was to increase the supply of dried milk. Can he say what use dried milk is in a drought?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are talking about shortage of water for cereal production, cotton production, and indeed for the feeding of animals. There is, as yet, no problem with water consumption for humans.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this drought has undermined the hard work that has gone into the production of food in this area over the past two or three years, which succeeded, so far as Zambia is concerned, in making her self-sufficient in maize last year? Would he agree that the two major factors that can ensure against the effects of such a drought are irrigation, as my noble friend mentioned, and storage facilities, both of which are expensive? Would he draw that to the attention of the Minister for Overseas Development?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly do that, though I would point out that very expensive storage facilities are not necessarily appropriate to the areas of the world we are currently discussing. For example, as the noble Lord knows, the traditional method of storage of maize is in bags, and Governments in that part of the world are extremely reluctant to get away from that because the capital expense does not justify the return.

Traffic Congestion: Central London
2.44 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking in the light of the failure of the Greater London Council to deal with the increasing congestion and delay of traffic in Central London.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, the primary responsibility for traffic in London is vested in the Greater London Council. The Government for their part have placed a high priority on the completion of the M.25, which will reduce through traffic in London. The fixed penalty for illegal parking has recently been increased, the recruitment of traffic wardens improved, and powers are being sought in the Transport Bill—which is at present before your Lordships' House—which include making more difficult the avoidance of penalties as well as allowing the use of wheel clamps on an experimental basis in selected areas. All of those measures are designed to reduce congestion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that comprehensive reply, may I ask whether he is aware that most of it appeared to relate to action by Her Majesty's Government and remarkably little to the inaction of the Greater London Council? Will he in particular discuss with the GLC, with whom, as he says, the power lies, the question of following the example of, for instance, Paris and Rome and forbidding very large vehicles to traverse the centre of the city?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government are not responsible for what the GLC do and we have, as my noble friend probably knows, GLC proposals to ban lorries in London. These are at present under
796
consideration. A number of interesting and radical solutions have been proposed for achieving a relaxation of the congestion, and I am sure the GLC will bear in mind what my noble friend said.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the Minister consider that a measure that could play a significant part in reducing congestion would be the encouragement of cycling, so that people, instead of bringing their cars into Central London, could get about by a pollution-free method of transport instead? Will the Government take steps to encourage local authorities —not just the GLC—to provide cycle paths on major routes so that this method of transport is considerably encouraged?
The Earl of Avon: There has indeed been an increase in bicycling, my Lords, and we are well aware of that. Some studies have been done on it and a number of authorities arc following the ideas which the noble Lord has suggested.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the whole question of congestion was dealt with very effectively on a non-party discussion basis in this House in a debate on the problems of congestion in Greater London? Would he acknowledge that the transportation department of the GLC has given considerable attention to the problem? In addition to the points the Minister mentioned, is it not a fact that an important question, in addition to enforcement, is the need to ensure that the clearways are left open and there is adequate and efficient public transport?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in thanking my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye for instituting a debate we had some months ago. I also endorse everything Lord Underhill said about the progress that is being made, including the fact that the GLC has the Wood Committee at present sitting on this very subject.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the Minister having referred to the capability of the M.25 to deal with the problem of through traffic in London, may I ask whether he is aware that through traffic is only a tiny proportion of London's traffic, much less than 10 per cent.? The problem is not that of through traffic but of inner London traffic. Does he agree that a more sensible proposition would be to revive the long-abandoned idea of the motorway box, which would be much more sensible than the M.25?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sure those are the sort of conditions and situations which are being discussed at the moment by the committee set up by the GLC, and I am sure they will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Soames: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to hazard a guess as to the date of completion of those sections of the M.25 which will relieve the congestion of traffic in London? In view of the supplementary asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, may I remind my noble friend that the Peripherique in Paris, which is the equivalent of the M.25, has made

797
an enormous difference to the flow of traffic in the centre of Paris? However, that is a four-way motorway, and I hope the M.25 will be too, or it will be out of date before it starts.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the date of completion of the M.25 for which we are hoping is 1986. I have —I am sure like other noble Lords—sat in a traffic jam on the Peripherique.
Lord Soames: Not for long.
Lord Howie of Troon: May I ask the Minister to note, my Lords, that the Peripherique, interesting though it is, is nothing like the M.25, which is an orbital road? The Peripherique is more like the motorway box, which unfortunately was abandoned a few years ago.
The Earl of Avon: I take note of what the noble Lord has said, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if my noble friend Lord Howie wanted to revive the motorway box, he would be welcome to do so in Troon but not in London?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord obviously speaks from Putney, where such boxes would be very unacceptable.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the River Thames is one of the least used waterways of any major city in the world? Also, will he note the fact that perhaps greater use could he made of heavy lorries?
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, may I add that what I was referring to was heavy lorries making use of barges on the River Thames?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention. He may care to know that at present about only 6 per cent. of London's freight is carried on the river.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned the need to ban heavy vehicles from entering Central London. Turning to cars, rather than lorries, may I ask the noble Earl the Minister whether he personally has considered, or perhaps the Government have considered, the case—which seems to me a strong one—for supplementary licences for car owners entering Central London in the day time? That should both reduce congestion and raise more revenue for the improvement of public transport.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my understanding is that the GLC has indeed considered such things, but I have a feeling that the administrative costs would be prohibitive.

Nurses' Wages Since 1979
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the average increase in nurses' wages since 1979.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, since March 1979 the average pay increase for all nursing and midwifery grades has been 61 per cent. Earnings, which represent on average an additional 16½ per cent. on basic pay, increased by some 60 per cent. over the same period.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend the Minister for supplying the figures, may I ask that they be made better known among members of the nursing profession, who may then be more inclined to co-operate with the Government in getting pay negotiations for the nursing profession put on to a more sensible basis?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I and my right honourable and honourable friends in the Department of Health lose no opportunity of making the figures public, not least in answer to Questions from the noble Baroness and Members of the other place. I am not sure what more there is that we could do in present circumstances, but certainly I hope that the importance of the figures that I have mentioned is not lost on those who are now contemplating industrial action of one sort or another.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in 1930 I introduced a Bill in another place for a living wage and an eight-hour day for nurses? They were treated like Florence Nightingales, needing little money. Despite the increases that have been made, is it not the case that nurses, who are fulfilling the most necessary contribution to society, have a wage that is still far less than the average in this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is wholly right on that. No doubt the Bill that he sought to introduce all those years ago was right and proper at the time, but today, for example, an enrolled nurse earns £4,000, a staff nurse, £4,500, a ward sister's pay is approaching £6,000, and a nursing officer, Grade I earns £6,500— and that is before any offer in respect of 1982 is added on. So the picture is not necessarily as black as the noble Lord paints it.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in order to get a secretary in London, he would have to pay £6,000, and the kind of work in which she would be engaged would be of a pleasant and enjoyable character? With regard to the kind of work in which a nurse is often engaged, if the noble Lord were to visit the casualty department of a hospital in London any day of the week, he would see exactly what the nursing staff have to contend with.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not doubt that much of the work which nurses do is difficult, and very often they work very long hours indeed. But, on the other hand, the work is very satisfying, perhaps more so than the work done by the kind of secretary whom the noble Baroness has described.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend acknowledge the magnificent way in which the nursing profession has so far declined to strike, and will that be borne in mind in their favour in any thoughts that the Government may be giving to their pay and conditions of service?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, the Government certainly recognise that nurses are a special case, even within the health service. That is why the offer that we made included special provision for the nurses, and that is why we made additional funds available for the purpose.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the fact that nurses make very good wives?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I regret that I do not speak from experience of that kind, but I am sure that the noble Lord is right.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that perhaps the best alternative to industrial action is arbitration, to which both sides can put their cases fairly?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect, arbitration has one drawback, and that is that it does not say where any additional money is to come from. It is for the Government surely to decide how much money is available for the purpose. That is what we have done and that is what the offer incorporated.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that all emergency cases are receiving proper care and attention during the National Health Service industrial dispute?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am very sorry to have to say that during the last day of action (as it was called) emergency care was not maintained right across the country, in particular with regard to the ambulance services in some areas, and therefore special arrangements had to be made.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the noble Baroness's supplementary question to him should be rephrased, in that it is a matter not of the nurses co-operating with the Government, but the Government co-operating with the nurses? I ask that bearing in mind that, although the percentages look all right on paper, what is overlooked is the fact that nurses have to undergo quite a period of training. Will the noble Lord also give comparative figures for other industrial increases, in particular in the higher regions of management?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course I do not have in front of me the figures for every single area of British industry, but the noble Lord recently asked me about the TSRB report, and on that occasion I was able to tell him (if he recalls) that members working in the health service have I think enjoyed a 20 per cent. increase since 1980, and are now therefore paid in the order of that percentage above 1980 levels, while those to whom the TSRB award applied are still paid only about 14 per cent. above the levels of that year.
Lord Segal: My Lords, in considering any salary increase will the noble Lord bear in mind that for the type of work that they do in saving human life nurses can never be adequately paid?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is a good deal of force in what the noble Lord says, but I fear the fact remains that we have to find the money from somewhere. The health service employs altogether about a million people, about half of whom are nurses, and so your Lordships will appreciate that even a modest increase costs a very great deal of money overall.

Road Humps: Regulations
2.59 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when, in accordance with Schedule 10 to the Transport Act 1981, they expect the regulations prescribing the requirements for road humps to be ready.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, these regulations are being prepared, and we hope to have ready soon a draft for consultation with representatives of outside organisations, which is required under the Act. The rate of progress thereafter will inevitably depend on the results of the consultation, but the regulations will be made and laid before Parliament as soon as possible.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for that Answer. Can he give me any idea of what he means by "soon"? May I also ask the noble Earl whether he will agree with me that if a noble Lord puts down a non-oral Question genuinely seeking information, asking when the order is to be laid, it is not quite good enough to say, "When it is ready"?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I quite understand the noble Lord's point, and in fact I looked for him towards the end of last week to see whether I could supplement the Answer that was given to me. What has happened regarding the regulations is that technical advances were made by the end of last year, and instructions were ready by the beginning of January for the legal department; but, unfortunately, we have had a little trouble with the legal department because of pressure of work. It may seem strange, but the lawyer in question was

801
involved in the international and European Community traffic, which has been very highly pressed over the last few months for reasons which, obviously, the noble Lord will understand. However, things are progressing well now. I would have said that we might be three months behindhand, and we shall try to catch up.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a large body of opinion which will be pleased with his Answer and will take some comfort from the fact that nothing greatly is lost by the delay in bringing these orders before Parliament?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I note what my noble friend has said, and I am sure that it has nothing to do with the term "sleeping policemen".
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if there is a delay of this kind, is it not quite wrong to say that this is not a serious matter? Is the noble Earl saying to the House that the department is short-staffed; that the legal department is unable to carry on with its work because of the lack of qualified lawyers to do it? In view of the Government's attitude toward reduction in the Civil Service, would he not say that really this discloses a most serious situation in the department and one which needs to he looked at very carefully; and would he come down to the House to make a statement fairly soon to inform noble Lords that the position is not as serious as he has now disclosed?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not know that there is any necessity to come back to the House to do any such thing. There are no serious shortcomings at all. This is one particular case where one man has to do two jobs; and I am sure the noble Lord would not wish a whole series of lawyers to be sitting there ready to do anything which comes up. This gentleman has had to do the motorcycle test, which I know my noble friend Lady Macleod is very interested in; and, of course, it is impossible for one man to do everything at once. I would have thought that at the moment the Department of Transport has just about exactly the right number of people it should have.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would the noble Earl the Minister confirm that I am correct in assuming that his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, means that the Government are still in full support of the proposal for road humps, as contained in the 1981 Bill? Secondly, could he say whether any discussions at all have taken place with the organisations which the Minister is required to consult about the contents of these regulations? Have any consultations taken place yet?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, indeed, my Lords. If I could repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, indeed we are just about to hold the consultations which are required by the Act. Because of unforeseen circumstances, we are about two months behind what was our own plan.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I do not wish to appear to be in conflict with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who wishes the traffic to flow rather quicker through London. I am asking it to flow a little slower, but only in certain residential areas.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, whether you like to push a pram along a road or across a "sleeping policeman" is up to you.

The Youth Training Scheme
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the Youth Training Scheme.

Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill
3.4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they having been informed of the purport of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time, with the amendments.
Clause 2 [Provisions supplementary to section 1]:
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert (" insofar as it relates to the preparation of the accounts of the transferor or the transferee.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, 1 beg to move the first amendment on the Marshalled List standing in my name and in that of my noble friend. Your Lordships will recall that at the Report stage of the Bill the Government sought to introduce an amendment to what is now Clause 2 of the Bill. That amendment, which appeared at the end of a series of provisions that gave the Secretary of State power to effect certain schemes to provide for the transfer of rights and liabilities and for dealing with other matters in connection therewith, and also for the purpose of borrowing powers, sought to insert the words,
"notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment."
The noble Earl gave a very brief explanation of this, and when I ventured to query the importance of the amendment which he was then seeking to introduce he informed me in personal terms that this was an amendment which he had expected that I as an accountant would understand, but as I evidently had not understood it he proposed to explain it in detail. That was a very nice condescension of him which I am sure was deeply appreciated by the House. In the course of his reply he mentioned the case of Shearer v. Bercain as being relevant to the issue he had in mind, and when I bestowed upon him the accolade of my nodded agreement he declined (somewhat discourteously, I thought) to accept it on the grounds that it was, as he put it, too late.
It is not too late to consider the whole question raised by the original amendment that the Govern-

803
ment brought forward giving the Secretary of State powers to do certain things "notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment". It is quite true, of course, that the noble and learned Members of your Lordships' Judicial Committee were not present at the time, obviously, for other reasons, but my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones was kind enough to explain the novelty of the proposal to your Lordships. It is rather a remarkable thing that the Secretary of State should have power to do certain things notwithstanding any rule of law or any other enactment.
The view was put forward—and put forward, I can assure the noble Earl, in a completely non-contentious spirit in the party sense, but purely as a matter of correct procedure—that if the Government anticipated (and it took them all the way to Report stage to anticipate it) any difficulty in doing what they wanted to do, the correct thing was to earmark either the specific cases which they had in mind or the particular statutes or sections of statutes that they had in mind, and then to make appropriate amendments specifically in the Bill itself. It is not uncommon for some Bills specifically to amend or to add to or subtract from other Acts which have already been passed, some of them many years ago and some quite recently.
It rather appeared to some of us—and the noble Earl will have to forgive the validity of dissent on some occasions, notwithstanding that he may get a little impatient of them—that it was quite reasonable to propose this discipline of research into any law which might interfere with the Secretary of State's intentions, and that the result should be set out specifically. Instead of that, the Government chose—and they have chosen to do it not only in this part but also in a later part relating to the subsidiaries and assets of the gas board—to put in this omnibus provision.
I hasten to assure the noble Earl that when I politely nodded—in fact, benevolently nodded—my agreement to his reference to Shearer v. Bercain, it was my grateful acknowledgment of the fact that he had even borne that case in mind; no more, no less. In his reply on Report, the noble Earl said:
" Given that it is possible that certain of the transferred assets may well have a true or market value exceeding their written down value in the books of BNOC at the transfer date, application of this principle could lead to Britoil having a type of reserve—the share premium account does not form part of the distributable reserves—which might not facilitate the sale of its shares to the public."—[Official Report, 8/6/82; col. 1381
The noble Earl, as politically as he is entitled to do, and bearing in mind the judgment in the case of Shearer v. Bercain, explained that that was why he wanted this restriction removed.
Of course, it was the case that, where a share transfer took place in those circumstances, a share premium account was created, and under the decision in Shearer v. Bercain, it would not have been possible for the company to have distributed the share premium account, even though the existence of the share premium account was due to previously earned profits. So far, so good. Then returning to the second limb of the amendment, he said,
" The obvious example here is Section 56 of the Companies Act 1948 which requires that where a company issues shares at a premium, whether for cash or otherwise, a sum equal to the amount
804
or value of the premium is to be transferred to a share premium account. There are substantial restrictions on what may be done with the moneys in a share premium account. In particular, they may not be utilised for the payment of dividends."
Quite clearly, the prospect of the new company not being able to distribute profits that have been previously earned by BNOC was repugnant to the noble Earl. Politically, he is entitled to express his repugnance and to take steps to remedy the situation, although others of us may take a slightly more jaundiced view of it, in saying that the noble Earl—or his right honourable friend—is quite determined that his political friends shall get their share of the swag on the dismantling of BNOC and the partial sale of the assets of the gas corporation. But, that is as it may be. The noble Earl made much of Shearer v. Bercain, which enshrined the principles to which he objected, but when the noble Earl came to reply, after having instructed me as to the law, which he had previously withheld because he thought that I knew all about it, he ended up with the statement that, after all, it was purely an accounting matter.
If your Lordships will refer to the amendment, it clearly sets out the limitations to which he himself referred. After the offending amendment, which he himself introduced and which states:
" notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment "
what we now seek to do is to insert the words,
" insofar as it relates to the preparation of the accounts of the transferor or the transferee ".
That sets it right for the noble Earl. We accept the limitations to which he referred. The noble Earl says that no vital British constitutional question arises here, and nothing that need alarm your Lordships in any way; it is purely a matter of accounts. Very well then, my Lords, let us insert the words in the amendment,
" insofar as it relates to the preparation of the accounts of the transferor or the transferee ".
I shall not hide from your Lordships that, even after the insertion of those words, the whole phrase would still not be acceptable and I am devoutly hopeful that, when the amendments go back to another place, the other place will seriously examine the original amendment to which I have referred. But, for the moment, in order to modify the impact of what I consider to be a completely unreasonable amendment, this amendment is before your Lordships.
If what the noble Earl says is true about the impact of his original amendment which I read to your Lordships—
" notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment "—
what is the relevance of Sections 36 to 40 of the Companies Act 1981? It was precisely those sections, which your Lordships will recall went through this House late last year, which were supposed to remedy the situation in Shearer v. Bercain? What the noble Earl is really saying is that Sections 36 to 40 of the Companies Act 1981 do not affect the position. That is not what we were told at the time of the passing of the Companies Act 1981. We were told that the principles of Shearer v. Bercain had been dealt with by Sections 36 to 40.
I am going to put a question to the noble Earl and I hasten to put it to him, in all humility, as an accountant

805
to a distinguished lawyer. If the Shearer v. Bercain situation, to which I have referred, is covered by the Companies Act 1981, Sections 36 to 40, why does he have to have this extra provision? If, on the other hand, the situation is not covered by the Companies Act 1981, Sections 36 to 40—and I shall rely on his legal judgment and on that of his advisers for that—why should this company have any particular privileges that are denied to the broad general mass of public and private companies in this country? If it is not covered, what is their position? Why should this series of transactions have that privilege?
The position is thoroughly unsatisfactory. As I have said, the noble Earl brought forward this amendment after the Bill had been through the other place, and after it had been through Committee here, because somewhere in the department, among his legal advisers or officials, there emerged a doubt and this omnibus way of sweeping up, without reference to any particular Acts, was chosen.
I put it to the noble Earl: is there another case in the lists of the courts at the moment of which the noble Earl has reason to be apprehensive? Is that the reason? If that is not the reason, what is the real reason for the insertion of the original clause, which however limited its effect is alleged to be, is nevertheless a very undesirable precedent to set for future Governments, allowing Ministers powers to act,
" notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment "?
My Lords, I beg to move.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, at the Report stage some complaint was made—in a very good-tempered way, but still it was made—that at the discussions at that stage the House did not have the benefit of assistance from any of those of us who have some experience in legal matters. The reason was simply this. This amendment came in at a very late stage, only at the Report stage, I am afraid it escaped the notice of myself, and I think my colleagues, and we were not alerted to it. I felt that as a matter of courtesy at any rate one of us should be here today to give what help we can—which will not be very great, I am afraid as to the merits of the amendment proposed by the Government and the new amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Certainly, when one sees these words which were inserted by the original Government amendment,
" notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment ",
one's hackles tend to rise. I daresay they rise more vigorously on the back of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones on the Opposition Benches than they do at the rather cooler place from which I am speaking. Nevertheless, one does not like the look of those words and one certainly wishes to scrutinise them rather carefully. I have read with some care—and I hope with understanding—the explanation of these words given by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, at the Report stage, at columns 137 and 138 of Hansard. Speaking entirely for myself, I find his explanation in relation to the case of Shearer v. Bercain totally satisfactory. He is there explaining that that case
806
lays down that it is the true value of an asset which determines the value of the shares at issue, and he does not wish that that principle should be continued into this Bill.
I personally think that while the explanation is a satisfactory one, it does not really render this amendment necessary because the provisions already in the previous subsection, subsection (4) (a) to (e), of this Bill make it perfectly clear what the statutory value of these assets are to be taken to be. They are not the true value; they are the value ascertained in accordance with those paragraphs. Therefore, I think the situation is quite satisfactory. There is the elaborate Clause 2, and the same goes for the later clause dealing with British Gas, which establishes a special value to be attributed to assets for the purposes of this clause. So far, so good. I must say that I am not so happy about the noble Earl's explanation regarding Section 56 of the Companies Act. That is a section, as your Lordships know, which requires establishment of a share premium account in certain circumstances. His explanation there is contained at the foot of column 138, of Hansard of 8th June. I shall not read it out.
I am left in some doubt regarding Section 56 and what it is that the Government are trying to do. Are they displacing Section 56 altogether and saying that there is to be no share premium account in relation to these assets, or are they saying, "All right, we recognise that Section 56 requires a share premium account but for the purposes of that section we wish the value to be taken into account to be the value given in the scheme"'? I am not at all clear which it is that the noble Earl is desiring in relation to that section. It would certainly benefit and help the discussions here—and certainly my approach to the amendment—if the noble Earl were able to make it clear. Just to recapitulate, is the noble Earl saying that there is not to be a share premium account at all, or is he saying that there is to be a share premium account but it is to he arrived at in relation to the scheme and not in relation to the true value of the assets?
Summing up, I do not personally regard this clause in its context as having any very dire effect. There is always the risk that if it is put in one Bill it will be taken up and put into others. We shall see it popping up in all sorts of contexts which may be much more far-reaching than the present one. I am sure that the noble Earl is now well-briefed to explain what he wishes to effect by these words, and the House will be very interested to hear his explanation.
Regarding the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, it would seem, if I may respectfully say so, to be a quite innocuous amendment. It only carries out what the noble Earl explained was the purpose of the clause on moving the amendment. It does not, to my mind, dispose of the doubts which I have already tried to explain in relation to Section 56. It does no harm, but possibly not very much good. I take rather a benevolent but neutral attitude towards it. The purpose of it is of course to probe the Government into explaining more carefully what they are trying to do through the original amendment. I think that that is all the assistance that I am able to give the House on this occasion.
Lord Balogh: My Lords, I am not going to go through the Bill sentence by sentence and clause by clause. This has been done in various meetings. What I should like to do is to sketch the probable results of the Bill in a very peculiar background which is not often recognised in this country. The passage of this Bill, in my opinion, ushers us into a new era, an era of violence. Looking back on the story of the impact and influence of the completely unexpected finding of oil and gas to the tune of £200 billion has not improved the outlook. One ought to ask: Why not? How can it be improved? What kind of methods are necessary?
When we look back on the story of the impact and influence of oil and gas a regular pattern can be discerned in the Government's reaction. They made good all their pledges, and the pledges were to roll back the public sector and to increase savings by shifting taxation from direct taxes to indirect ones. The Government had, of course, a very good legal case to do whatever they liked. The Tory Governments in power between 1951 and 1964 passed a law which vested the hydrocarbons in the state and they disliked early amendments.
As this could not be done so soon by legislation—and nobody wanted it, anyhow—what happened was that a licensing system was introduced for the exploitation of oil which was more favourable and which would have the same effect as granting money freely to the corporation. The licences were for longer periods, and the state had practically no right to supervise and ascertain the working of the oil giants which could manipulate transactions in and between their single units and so regulate the distribution of profits as they accrued, making as much as possible shift into colonial areas or ex-colonial areas, of which we have only too many.
The Secretary of State for Trade greeted this arrangement with enthusiasm, as did his predecessors. If the aim of the economic policy exercise was the satisfaction of the multinationals, they might indeed have been delighted. In the end, the British Government gave away some two-thirds of the existing oil and gas reserves, at concessionary prices, without taxation being immediately and in parallel remodelled. The Government had not secured access to the books. This approach was commented on with great sharpness by the Public Accounts Committee.
From a British point of view, the outlook is at least sombre. The unexpected fortune of the oil and gas discoveries was not adequately safeguarded. Indeed, Britain could not be certain that the indirect impact of the hydrocarbon wealth would not, through the steady upward push on sterling, be upset or more than upset.
How was it possible that the British Government did not realise this gravely disturbing potentiality? The explanation of this failure, in my opinion (increasingly shared by the more knowledgeable) lies in the fallacious basic hypothesis on which their analysis and measures depended. Contrary to all evidence, conventional monetaristeconomiststrumpet their success in curbing inflation and in rolling back the public sector. That the public sector was rolled back there can be no doubt. That the end of inflation is in sight is somewhat more doubtful. The vast increase of unemployment is, in their view, the consequence, not
808
indeed of the increasingly restrictive policy due to the over-valuation of the pound but of undue wage demands.
The neo-classical doctrines seem to be weakening in the academics, but under Mrs. Thatcher's enthusiasm, shared by Mr. Reagan, still dominate the larger number of the Government experts in defiance of all experience and reason. The economic Bourbons might, unwittingly, reproduce the catastrophe of 1931–34. Professor Hayek has suddenly re-emerged from nowhere and now, as then, still misunderstands the nature of those distant times as he does the present. Of course, the noble Lord the Minister claims that the restoration of competitive markets will solve our problems, that the signalling system based on "free" prices is the best possible way of ensuring balance in the economy, and from there expansion. At no point, however, was the expansion of the hydrocarbon industry induced by free competition. At first it was a heroic battle of Standard Oil and Shell. Subsequently, they admitted and stimulated five major and half-a-dozen minor corporations.
In no way could their behaviour be brought into any relationship with the picture of perfectly competitive markets. This has important implications for Government in their relations with industry. If the market is not able—as it palpably was not and is not—to produce a balance in the economic system, it would have to be substituted by monitoring and acting on the result. This was the reason why, during the Wilson-Callaghan era, a state company (BNOC) was organised. Without participation in actual production, no one could follow the complications of conscious adjustment which was required. The law which we are discussing, will make such effective supervision and adjustment impossible. The BNOC has been stripped of all the powers it would need for that purpose. What emerges from the ashes of an orderly adjustment is a second BP, a second private oil company, partly-owned by the state —which is not capable of acting as a monitor for, and liaison between, the Government and the industry.
The prospects are aggravated by the growing concentration—and the growing importance of the spot market—cif the retail trade. The inelasticity of demand will again be tested as a result of the recent increase in petrol prices. It was fully demonstrated by the disappointment of the widespread hopes for a collapse of the market price of oil in Rotterdam below the 34 dollars per barrel level; when the "market" weakened last year, the relatively vulnerable countries, especially Nigeria, seem to have demanded further concessions from their trading partners, on the pain of cancelling orders. Actually the success was very meagre. The Saudi Arabians threatened further cuts in their own production and discrimination against weak buyers and exhausted producers. The market is begining to tighten.
The coincidence of these peculiarities on both sides —production and consumption—of the hydrocarbon market would demand strict supervision of the price and production policies of the larger producers. Market forces cannot secure optimal distribution and use. Unfortunately, both economists and civil servants are, if not positively hostile, at least very suspicious of any intervention, let alone management of this most important segment of the economy. Yet, without it, periodic crises will prove unavoidable. Noble Lords opposite, and their friends in another place,

809
might well regret what will prove to be an infatuation with a ridiculous fallacy.
The stripping of the gas corporation of its monopoly powers in purchasing natural gas for fuel purposes shows the shoddiness in the design of policy. The main impact will be an increase in the private sector profits without contributing at all to the equalisation of the market.
Even more intellectually contemptible was the notion that the public sector borrowing (PSBR) is of decisive importance in economic management. This notion reversed the reform of monetary statistics, which we had been able to accomplish. It took us back towards 1922. What ought to be done is obviously the separation in consumption expenditure, investment expenditure, socially-required investment and privately-admitted.
The essential basis of monetary policy ought to be reconsidered and adjusted. These considerations largely determine the choice of the use to which the growing oil surpluses should be put. It is essential to differentiate between the public and the private sectors, not through the mechanical means of the price level but much more by subsidy and extra taxes. The short-term public sector surplus ought to be used to strengthen the reserve position. Under the gold, and gold-exchange standards, this would have been done automatically. Indeed, the mystique surrounding the process prevented, on more than one occasion, the timely devaluation of sterling.
In the last decade, another dangerous mystique has grown up. This condemned any interference with the market by counteracting flows and counter flows by the Central Banks. They fallaciously argued that the purchase (or sale) of foreign currencies caused inflation —or deflation—as the case may be, because it had an impact on the domestic money supply.
The notion that it would tend to stabilise the situation could not be tolerated, as it attacked the very existence of sound monetarist vision. But if intervention in this form was condemned, stabilisation would be elusive.
At this critical juncture, the control of foreign exchange was abolished at a single stroke. The improvement of the current balance of payments was nullified by the tremendous export of capital to purchase both portfolio assets and direct investment. Inasmuch as our supply of managerial talent seems feeble, and much of the capital equipment is admittedly obsolete, the policy of freedom which has been carried through means the continuation of the policy of "too little, too late" followed by crisis, from which we have suffered so much——
Lord Willis: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I am sure he is making a most stimulating speech but 1 cannot hear a word.
Lord Balogh: My Lords, I am opposite a microphone. You must complain to—
Lord Willis: My Lords, the noble Lord is not near enough to it.
Lord Balogh: The Bill before your Lordships' House is another step downwards which will cause endless difficulties—is that better?
A noble Lord: Much better.
Lord Balogh: The shrinkage of our industrial industries will continue and our international competitive power will remain enfeebled.
3.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I do appreciate that when we debated on Report paragraph (b) of what is now subsection (6) of Clause 2, the words,
" notwithstanding any rule of law and the provision of any enactment ",
gave rise to a certain amount of comment. May I start, however, on what is possibly a personal note. I am distressed that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, should think that I did not give appropriate weight to the comments he made and the way he developed his arguments. The difficulty is always that one is in some sort of dilemma because one has to reply on behalf of the Government and therefore one has to explain and justify. But there is the other side of the coin, that one does not wish to regale the House with a lot of details which it might not want to hear, and particularly when one is talking to people such as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who are experts in their own field. If in that case my judgment was wrong, then of course I apologise to him, because he and I both know that is not the way in which this House conducts its business.
I was also asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, whose interventions I always take seriously, as indeed I did on this occasion, whether I would refer this particular passage to the draftsmen to see whether or not the effect it gives could be achieved by specific provisions in the various paragraphs of subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 2. 1 have done this and, in the face of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, says, I have to inform the House, on advice from the draftsmen, that such amendments as the noble and learned Lord suggested on Report would not be possible. That is their judgment of this particular problem. Further, those who have considered this aspect advise me that they could not say with certainty that specific wording in various paragraphs would be sufficient to achieve the desired objective without being underpinned by some general words. It is, therefore, the view of the Government that we should continue with the general words which we have, which cover the ground where specific problems have been identified and which also, on the best view that can be formed, cover other areas where problems have not been identified but where they might still appear.
I should stress again to the House that although the words of paragraph (13) of Clause 2(6) appear wide, their effect would in fact be specific because those words will have effect only when allied to provisions appearing in the scheme by virtue of one or other of the paragraphs in subsections (3) and (4). I would also remind the House that the transfer of an undertaking by means of such a scheme as is envisaged in this Bill is something completely outside the normal run of company practice. Not surprisingly, specific problems have been identified and have led to Clause 2 being in the form it now is. In turn, because of the novelty of the exercise, and because problems have already been identified, Clause 2

811
has been further cast in a form which will enable problems which might arise to be resolved, as it enables the resolution of the problems already identified.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked whether Sections 36 to 41 of the Companies Act did not cover the Shearer v. Bercain point. These sections were drafted to cover certain specific situations in company practice. What is now being considered is well outside the usual run of commercial transactions. The company Britoil is being set up out of a state corporation by means of a scheme in preparation for a flotation. Sections 37 and 38 describe circumstances which are not on all-fours with those which the Government now face. Section 37 deals with certain arrangements concerning a company and its holding company, and of course BNOC is not a company, so we are not within that circumstance. Section 38 deals with allocation of shares by a company to its holding company—again, not the position which faces the Government. Section 39 deals with one company allocating shares in exchange for shares in another company. In short, the 1981 Act does not fully cover the circumstances facing the Government, which the provisions of the Bill do.
Then the noble Lord asked whether there might be a case before the courts to which the attention of the draftsmen might have been directed when they were drafting this particular provision. The answer is that there was no such case in mind although, if the noble Lord knew of one, I daresay the Government would be extremely grateful to be told about it.
I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for his intervention and I was relieved, I think I might say, to some extent. He asked whether or not the new provision in Clause 2 anticipated the creation of a share premium account as defined in Section 56 of the Companies Act. The answer is, yes; the scheme-making powers would enable a share premium account to be established in Britoil's opening balance sheet. The account would be the difference between the value of the shares issued in consideration and the net value of the assets transferred. Whether or not there is to be such an account has yet to be determined, but the power is there. I cited various examples on Report, and I will not repeat them now. There are, I suggest, respectable precedents for the effect of what is proposed in the Bill in this respect, and particularly Section 4 of the British Aerospace Act 1980 springs to mind.
In view of what the noble and learned Lord said, I think I should say why it is that the Government regard the noble Lord's amendment as unacceptable in the context of Clauses 2 and 10. The amendment assumes that the provisions in subsections (3) and (4) of these clauses relate solely to the preparation of accounts. While their main purpose is to provide for continuity of accounts between the transferor and the transferee, it is not their only purpose. These provisions look to actions which are to be taken as well as to the way those actions are to be reflected in the accounts.
For example, paragraph (c) of subsection (4) provides for the creation of a reserve which will be available for distribution to shareholders. The distribution to shareholders from this reserve is not a matter relating
812
to the preparation of accounts, although the accounts would record the transaction. It is an action which would fall outside the qualification which the amendment seeks to introduce. This reinforces the difficulties which I have already described in attempting to include specific wording in the various paragraphs and the reason why we have adopted the formulation in paragraph (b) of subsection (6).
I appreciate immediately—and did so as soon as I saw the drafting of the amendment—that this kind of wording can give rise to misapprehension. I hope, however, that those misapprehensions will now have been dispelled and that the purpose and effect of par-graph (b) have been explained. Therefore. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having given his explanation, which was largely in technical terms. However, he still has not particularised the problems which his original phrase was designed to cover. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for his very objective examination of the problem that the original phrase raised. He was unable to go the whole way with me, but one sentence of his impressed me. It was a point which, in less felicitous terms, I myself had made at Report: that clauses such as this may always be quoted as a precedent. The amendment which I have ventured to lay before your Lordships severely circumvents the operation of this clause to the extent that it is not already covered by the Companies Act. It is a matter which should be circumvented and I propose to press the matter to a Division.
3.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 89.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Amherst, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Amulree, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ardwick, L.

George-Brown, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bacon, B.

Gosford, E.

Balogh, L.

Hampton, L.

Banks, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Beswick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Birk, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Bishopston, L.

Jacques, L.

Blyton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Byers, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Caradon, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cooper of Stockton Health, L.

Northfield, L.

Denington, B.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

813

Phillips, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Plant, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L

Underhill, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.. [Teller]

Sainsbury, L.

Shinwell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

White, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Stone, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Long, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lovat, L.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mansfield, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Milverton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Morris, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colyton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Newall, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guilford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Daventry, V.

Porritt, L.

Davidson, V.

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Renton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Richardson, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Romney, E.

Ebbisham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Eccles, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Effingham, E.

Sandford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller]

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Savile, L.

Gainford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gormanston, V.

Soames, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Spens, L.

Stamp, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hatherton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Ilchester, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Killearn, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Wynford, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The Youth Training Scheme
4 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
" With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on youth training. Last December I told the House of the Government's plans to introduce from September 1983 a new Youth Training Scheme which would guarantee up to a full year's
814
foundation training for all 16-year-old school-leavers who find themselves without a job. This would remove from them the threat of unemployment during their first year on the labour market and help them to acquire the skills they need to obtain and keep jobs.
"At the same time, I announced increased expenditure for the training of young workers and said that, if the Manpower Services Commission could make other proposals to bring more young unemployed people into paid jobs with proper training, the Government would be willing to consider the transfer of resources proportionately from the new scheme to such proposals.
"In response to this invitation, the MSC published on 4th May a comprehensive scheme proposed by its Youth Task Group, on which representatives of the CBI and TUC sat. The scheme was unanimously recommended to me by the MSC, supported by the CBI and the TUC, and has generally been endorsed by the Select Committee on Employment.
"The scheme is fully in line with the Government's ultimate objective for training young people. It meets the Government's requirements on the guarantee to all unemployed 16-year-olds, on the September 1983 date of introduction, on the content and length of the training programme, on involvement of the local community in delivery and on the need to keep within the resources made available in last December's White Paper. However, the MSC scheme extends beyond last December's proposals by covering also many young people in employment, including apprentices, and it proposes a higher level of training allowance.
"In this wider scheme, employers share in the training costs, and the Government accept that in these circumstances the training allowance can be increased without more cost to the taxpayer or any loss of training standards. A training allowance of £1,300 a year seems appropriate for the launch of the scheme in 1983, though this and the question of excessive travel costs will be reviewed in the summer of 1983 when the MSC will offer their advice to me.
"The Government generally accept the revised scheme and delivery arrangements as set out in Parts IV and V of the Youth Task Group report, on the basis that its costs will be kept within resources already made available for 1983–84 and 1984–85. Although we believe the resources will be sufficient to cover all unemployed 17-year-old school-leavers when the scheme begins, it is not yet possible to give a guarantee to this group nor to say when we might extend the scheme to cover all other unemployed 17-year-olds. In deciding the resources required, we have assumed substantial assistance from the European Social Fund, and this is essential.
"We accept the need for large initial Government funding of the new scheme while youth unemployment is still high, but we intend before 1985 to review the future distribution of the training costs between employers and Government. The MSC intend to undertake, in co-operation with the Government, a study of funding of industrial training generally which should help us decide the level of public funding in the longer term.

815
"We already undertake that all unemployed school-leavers will be offered a place on the Youth Opportunities Programme. My precedessor as Secretary of State for Employment made clear that, when the Government was in the position to guarantee that no 16-year-old need be unemployed, it would be time to withdraw supplementary benefit from 16-year-olds in their own right. Last December we also stated our belief that it would be right for young people, whether in education, the new training scheme or unemployed, to be regarded in general as dependent on their parents for the first year after reaching the minimum school leaving age.
"We still believe that these young people should not be entitled to supplementary benefit in their own right. Nonetheless, the Government have noted the firmly held and clearly expressed views of those on whom the operation of the scheme depends, that its launch could be seriously impaired by the withdrawal of supplementary benefit from 16-year-olds. We have therefore decided that withdrawal of supplementary benefit will not take place in September 1983 and that there will be a further review after a year's operation of the scheme.
"This will, I believe, also meet the views of the Select Committee and the Social Security Advisory Committee, who were similarly concerned. Meanwhile, in line with their views, we shall provide that those who unreasonably refuse a suitable training place will, like adults, have their benefit reduced for six weeks.
"This scheme is an immense step forward towards setting, standards and systems of training for our young people as good as those anywhere overseas. Its success now depends above all on the efforts made by employers and other sponsors, supported by unions, all of whom have fashioned its shape, to provide enough good quality training places. We shall certainly expect commercial and industrial establishments in the public sector to contribute, and I hope that all in this House and outside will give this imaginative new scheme the wholehearted support needed to ensure its successful operation from September 1983 ".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement being made by the Secretary of State in another place. It is in part a welcome Statement, although not as welcome as if the Minister had openly admitted that he was climbing down on two of the cardinal points included in his Statement of December 1981. Basically, the Statement, for all its length, says that the Government will not now withdraw supplementary benefit from those 16-year-olds who will not take part, and that the training allowance will be increased to £25 per week—that is, the £1,300 a year to which the Minister referred in his Statement, instead of the £15 a week previously proposed.
It is clear that inclusion of the conscripted youngster
816
would not have been conducive to making the scheme work, and we welcome the withdrawal of this threat to terminate supplementary benefits from those who do not wish to participate. One regrets that the atmossphere in the field of youth unemployment has been needlessly poisoned by the Statement made last December, and one is only thankful that the Secretary of State has been reluctantly converted to the views of the TUC, the CBI and the local education authorities under the aegis of the MSC's Youth Task Group, and that the scheme has been saved. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he and his right honourable friend are now whole-heartedly behind the scheme, as amended.
There are one or two points that I should like the Minister to clarify. What proportion of the unemployed 16 year-olds does he think the scheme will affect? How right does he think it is to make such an age distinction between 16, 17, and 18-year-olds? One hopes that the new scheme will cover a broader range of work opportunities and in particular that it will cater for the problem of ethnic minorities. One hopes also that the scheme will be operated on a decentralised basis, with more local autonomy.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Byers: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I would not wish in any way to minimise the importance of it. If I understood the Statement correctly, it represents a welcome retreat from the December White Paper and acceptance of a great deal of the Manpower Services Commission's Youth Task Group report. I hope that is correct, for that is the way I read it. If so, this represents a very important and welcome shift of policy away from the present concept of finding something for the unemployed 16-year-old to do, with a little training thrown in, in favour of a two-year training scheme for 16- and 17-year-olds, to provide them with special skills and higher standards which will make it easier for them to get, and to hold, real jobs. This is a very important change of policy. This is much in line with the views expressed from these Benches in recent months. We are also pleased that the loss of supplementary benefit as a sanction has been abandoned, and I congratulate the Government on having had a change of mind.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords for their halfhearted welcome to the proposals.
Seleral noble Lords: Wholehearted!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I misinterpreted the noble Lord opposite and I apologise. As for the resources available to the scheme, I think it is important to recognise that the total resources available remain unchanged. It is simply that. in general, employers will be making a greater contribution to the training programmes, and thus it has been possible to raise the allowance to individual trainees. But that is within the context—I would emphasise this—of the unchanged resources for the scheme as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me how many people would be affected by this. We believe

817
it will have an effect of some quarter of a million, in round figures, on the unemployment figures altogether; that is a very substantial number. Both noble Lords referred to a change of heart by the Government on this matter. I would prefer to call it a change of emphasis. But I readily acknowledge that the Government have reviewed their position on some of these matters. Perhaps it is worth saying that the Government did most carefully consider all the views expressed, including in particular those represented by your Lordships in the recent debate on this matter a couple of weeks ago.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement of the Secretary of State in another place. Although it is open to question whether this is a climb-down or a change of heart, or a change of emphasis, I do not propose to add my voice to the rather ungracious tone of the reception given to the Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I frankly welcome it. The Statement does refer to the views and the advice of the Select Committee on Employment in another place and of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It does not in so many words refer to the advice which emanated from all sides of your Lordships' House when we debated this very matter on 9th June, only a few days ago. But I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to this debate, and I think we can say with some confidence that it must have had some effect on the Government's thinking.
There are three specific points I would like to ask the noble Lord. He speaks of an allowance starting off at £1,300 a year in 1983. The task group recommended that this should he uprated to something in the region of £1,400 or £1,450 by September 1983. 1 wonder if the Government have taken that into account. The second point is this. Will the withdrawal of supplementary benefit for six weeks for unreasonable refusal apply only to 17-year-olds or to 16-year-olds as well? Finally, do the Government accept the priorities expressed in the task group reports final chapter, called Next Steps, on dates and the things that need to he done prior to implementation of the scheme? With those few questions I would repeat my welcome for the Government's Statement.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that response. Could I just make two points? The noble Lord asked about the rate of £1.300, which, as I said, is regarded now as appropriate for September 1983, but we have said that we are prepared to keep an open mind on this and maybe review the figure between now and then. On the withdrawal of benefit for six weeks in the event of unreasonable refusal to participate in a course, that would apply to both 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. On the final point the noble Lord made, about the conditions to be completed before the scheme comes into force, I would like to consider the implication of that question before giving the blanket assurance that the noble Lord asks for, and, if necessary, perhaps I could write to him.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as regards the contribution from EEC funds, is the Minister in a position to indicate the sort of proportion he expects
818
from that source, and can he say whether any similar scheme from any other member of the Community is having money from EEC funds, and on what sort of scale?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not able to say off-hand what assistance the Social Fund is giving to other members of the Community for similar schemes. 1 can say, so far as we are concerned, that we are receiving some £60 million, or did receive some £60 million in 1981, in respect of our own YOP scheme, which is, of course, subsumed into this new scheme. We would hope that we could get a little more for the coming year, but it is too early to say precisely how much more that will be. It is, of course, fairly simple arithmetic to determine what percentage of the total cost that contribution is. But it is very welcome.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is not the important aspect of all youth training schemes, including this one, the extent to which temporary training schemes lead on to permanent jobs? In that connection, will the noble Lord and his colleagues have a particular look at a scheme recently launched in Hartlepool by the Archbishop of York, and supported by the European Social Fund, the MSC, the local authority and the Church of England? Under this scheme the young people not only receive technical training but also business training, and it is linked with the formation of small co-operative businesses, which create new jobs and in which the young people can anticipate moving on to permanent employment. Has not this scheme got many constructive features, and would not the noble Lord give particular sympathetic regard to this project, with a view to its proliferation in connection with the scheme he has now announced?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, a doughty champion of the Co-operative Movement. I confess that I have not always gone all the way with him on some of his ideas in that connection, but in regard to the scheme he has described —I must confess I do not have immediate knowledge of that scheme—it sounds a very imaginative one and certainly appears to deserve support. On the general point of finding jobs for those who complete their course, I can say that about half, or perhaps more than half, of the trainees who complete courses do manage to find jobs at the end of that or soon after. I am looking forward to the day when more than that number will do so.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he preferred to describe this as a change of emphasis rather than a change of heart. May we take it that this confirms the view long held on these Benches that the Government have not got a heart?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that is not correct. In this particular context, to be specific, the revisions which we have made to the training scheme were literally a change of emphasis because they were a reordering of existing resources; it was not possible to make available additional resources. With regard to the supplementary benefit question—the second part of the proposals I have announced—we are saying that, although we are not going to withdraw supplementary

819
benefit in September 1983 as originally proposed, we are keeping an open mind on the subject, because the fact remains that one does need to consider in general whether supplementary benefit is appropriate for those who deliberately decline to undergo courses.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the people of Britain expect their Government to have both a heart and a head, and this scheme seems to encompass both?
Lord Spens: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I believe that the Members of your Lordships' recent Select Committee on Unemployment, who issued a report last week—and I think that there is only one other Member present in the Chamber today—will be very pleased indeed with this Statement because it accepts two of the Select Committee's recommendations; namely, that the minimum wage should be £25 and that the element of compulsion should be removed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, the Select Committee, of which the noble Lord was, I think, a distinguished Member, recognised that the Youth Training Scheme represented, in their words:
" a big step forward in combating youth unemployment ",
and made recommendations very similar to those of the task group whose revised scheme we have, in general, accepted this afternoon.

Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Third Reading resumed.
Clause 10 [Provisions Supplementary to Section 9.]:
4.20 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 13, line 6, at end insert (" insofar as it relates to the preparation of the accounts of the transferor or the transferee.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to detain the House long over this particular amendment, the substance of which has already been dealt with in Amendment No. 1. However, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Earl opposite for the initial explanation that he gave in regard to the attitude that he expressed when we were discussing this matter in Committee. I assure him that all is forgiven and that, notwithstanding our political differences, amiable relations are once again restored.
As regards Amendment No 2, I should like to refer to what the noble Earl said on the previous amendment that is equally applicable. The noble Earl was able to identify those particular parts to which the Companies Act 1981, Sections 36 to 40, did not apply. This makes it quite clear that a number of the problems have, in fact, been identified, albeit in a negative sense. Surely I should have thought that, by the process of elimination on which he has obviously been embarked, it should now be possible to identify the problems in more specific terms and thus avoid the necessity of the
820
original wording introduced at the Report stage—the words:
" in accordance with the scheme notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment ".
The noble Earl must realise that, despite the assurances not given in very strong terms by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, it is very undesirable that these words should appear in a British statute giving a Secretary of State such powers, albeit by implication, over quite a small area of operations. Therefore, we shall insist upon this amendment, because, of course, we are well aware that those in another place are very prone to read the proceedings in your Lordships' House. Consequently, by putting this matter to the Question, it will at least ensure that those in another place seize upon this particular amendment and all its implications. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for the manner in which he began his remarks as regards this amendment. I have gone over my notes so that I could see exactly what I said in relation to the last amendment, including one or two matters which, for the sake of brevity, I excised. I really do not think that I can improve on what I said previously in the sense that one cannot, in fact, prove a negative. In those circumstances, I do not wish in any way to make the House, still less the noble Lord, feel that I am not anxious to assist, but I do think that I answered the debate on the first amendment as fully as I could he expected to do, and the arguments which I deployed on that occasion really do meet the case which the noble Lord has put forward with his usual charm. I am afraid that I have nothing further to say.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 11 [Powers of Secretary of State as respects disposals by Gas Corporation]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 13, line 34, at end insert (" and that satisfactory standards of service and supply to consumers are maintained.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. Before speaking to the amendment I should like to put the record straight about the original amendment to Clause 9(1), which deals with the powers of disposal and which was accepted in Committee. Those points would also help in consideration of this amendment which I have just moved. I would remind noble Lords that the amendment proposed the addition of a proviso in the following terms:
" Provided that such disposal shall not result in the impairment of essential services nor imperil supplies to or safety of consumers ".
Two weeks ago on Report the Minister suggested that the amendment was in the wrong place and was too vague. In support of the first claim, the Minister argued that there was no point in amending Clause 9, as that particular clause conferred powers on the British Gas Corporation, which was hardly likely to exercise its powers to the detriment of consumers. But, as noble Lords from all parts of the House who supported the amendment were well aware, the inten-

821
tion was not to promote the interests of the corporation but to assist the interests of the consumers. There was a wide cross-section of speakers praising the corporation and its concern for the interests of the consumers. But we are thinking not only of the corporation today but of the future.
In moving this amendment I want to take a completely a-party political line because we are concerned with the interests of the consumers. Who is to say that at some time in the future there may not be a different board with appointees by, say, a different Secretary of State who may be more inclined to look at the Secretary of State's interests, to look at the corporation's interests, rather than those of the consumers?
The original amendment to Clause 9 would have safeguarded consumers against all possible contingencies whether instigated by the corporation under Clause 9 or by the Secretary of State under Clause 11. When noble Lords gave a majority of 15 to that amendment I am certain that they all knew perfectly well that that was what they wanted. Incidentally, may I remind noble Lords that a substantial number of noble Lords took part in that Division. A total of 213 Members of the House took part.
The Minister also referred to the vagueness of that previous amendment, but I am sure that it was absolutely clear, without any doubt at all, to the many noble Lords who voted for it, precisely what it meant. I would point out that, of the 114 noble Lords who voted for the amendment, no fewer than 19 were from the Government side who saw the common sense of the amendment being proposed. Indeed, 37 were other non-Labour Lords.
In fact, half of the people who voted in favour of the amendment originally put forward to Clause 9 were other than Labour Members of your Lordships' House. It was a decision by noble Lords from all parts of the House. However, as your Lordships will be aware, that amendment was deleted by a Government amendment at the Report stage. Here again I must remind the House that when the Government amendment was carried to delete the previous amendment, 61 fewer noble Lords voted in the Division than voted for the original amendment.
The amendment that I now move to Clause 11 seeks to ensure that the views expressed by all sides of your Lordships' House in Committee once more are to be taken into consideration. Noble Lords will recall that in pressing for the Clause 9 amendment to be deleted, the Minister attached great importance to the amendment to the clause which was to be moved later on by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. At col. 161 the Minister said:
" It will meet concerns expressed in Committee and it avoids the problems to which reference has been made ".
Noble Lords will appreciate that Clause 11(2), which appears on page 13 of the Bill—which gives effect to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod —deals with only one part of the original amendment. It is confined to safety and, in fact, apart from the change of the word "may" to the word "shall", repeats the words already in the Bill in Clause 14, which deals with safety.
In proposing this amendment we fully appreciate the points which the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, made in her amendment on the matter of safety.
822
Of course, safety to consumers is of vital importance. That is why it was included in our original amendment to Clause 9. But so are the other two points which are now involved in the amendment which I seek to move; the question of service and the question of supply.
I mentioned that the Minister claimed that the wording of the original Clause 9 amendment was too vague. He also made the same claim about the amendment that we proposed to the new subsection to Clause 11 put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, when that was debated on Report. If it is still to be suggested that the terms "service" and "supply" are vague than it is strange that those terms appear in a number of places in the 1972 Act and are repeated— are they not? in a number of places in the Bill before your Lordships today without any definition whatever.
Surely the answer is that they are absolutely acceptable expressions which I am certain were perfectly understood by the large number of noble Lords who supported the original amendment to Clause 9, which included those two particular terms. I am certain that they understood what they were voting for at the Committee stage.
I would stress that the Bill gives power for the disposal of the whole or part of any subsidiary. That has been confirmed by the Minister. From time to time I and quite a number of other noble Lords have drawn attention to the Government's statement that at present—note the words "at present"—their disposal plans are limited. In fact, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on 8th June on Report at col. 151 said:
" The Government have also made it plain that they have no present intention of privatising the gas corporation's transmission system, distribution system or customer services, and therefore I hope it will be agreed that mention of supplies is unnecessary."
Again, I must remind noble Lords of the reference to the two words "at present". A future Secretary of State, or a future Government, could decide to use those powers, and in such circumstances surely the questions of service and supply would become even more important if there is to be disposal of any part of the distribution system or the transmission system.
I do not want to go over all the detailed arguments. The present amendment will ensure that the maintenance of satisfactory standards of service and supply are added to that of safety in considering both the present proposals for disposal and any other proposal for disposal that any future Secretary of State or future Government may decide to put forward. At this stage, I am not arguing against the policy in the Bill for disposal; I am not saying that at all. But I am putting forward that in consideration of any proposed disposal the questions of service and of supply must also be in the forefront of the consideration as well as that of safety. When recommending the new subsection of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, which dealt with safety, at the Report stage at col. 151, the Minister said:
"…I do not believe that there is very much, if anything, between the two sides of the House or between the Government and other noble Lords."
In view of this statement and the points that I have made, I hope that the Government will now see their way to accepting the amendment as being in accordance

823
with the majority views expressed by some 114 noble Lords in carrying the original amendment on 11th May. I beg to move.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Underhill in this amendment. I think that he has quite clearly spelt out the arguments that the Minister used on the last occasion when he accused us of being vague and of inserting our amendment in the wrong place in the Bill. Be that as it may, I think that it is incumbent upon the House to record that noble Lords from all sides of the House fully understood what we are trying to achieve in that amendment. My noble friend Lord Underhill made it quite clear. If it was not quite clear, then we are underestimating the intelligence of noble Lords in that debate. Our intentions were quite clearly understood. They were solely to promote the interests of consumers.
We all understood and appreciated the very great difficulties in which the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, found herself after she had spoken to and voted on our amendment. We extend a certain amount of sympathy to the noble Baroness. This is one of the penalties that one faces in party political public life; on so many occasions when one feels strongly on a particular issue—and it is not always at the most convenient stage for your political party—one perhaps finds oneself facing great diffiulties. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, tried to overcome those difficulties by accepting the advice of the Minister, which during the Report stage resulted in subsection (2) of Clause 11. I accept those difficulties of the noble Baroness.
But what I find strange are the words of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on 8th June during the Report stage. At column 149 he said:
" The Government have been accused of being totally obdurate so far as this Bill is concerned and unwilling to compromise in any way, shape or form, but it is obvious that there has been a genuine and a sustained attempt at compromise…".
I should have thought that the words "genuine compromise", as used in this Chamber, would normally imply consultation with the movers of the amendment, if it is to be genuine. Neither myself nor my noble friends were consulted re the repositioning of the amendment, telling us that it was in the wrong place and asking us to reconsider and put it in Clause 11. I think that the genuine compromise to which the noble Earl referred on Report was not the genuine compromise that we would expect in this House.
Turning to today's amendment, perhaps we ought to spell it out clear and loud. The amendment is to maintain adequate standards of service and security of supply to the consumer. Service, supply and safety must be taken into account in the disposal of assets. If, as is widely believed, the withdrawal of the BGC from retailing leads to an expansion of sales only outlets, the mechanisms of service, supply and safety will need to be reconsidered. The Government have made their intentions clear in regard to gas showrooms, although I do not recall any formal debate taking place in either Chamber.
I have not been able to find written in the Tory manifesto clearly spelt out that it was their intention to deprive the consumers of a well recognised consumer sales, advisory and service centre from the
824
high streets of this country. Where do the cries of complaint come from? I would suggest to noble Lords, not from the ordinary gas consumer. Are the services to those gas consumers to be jeopardised in the future to satisfy a very small section of certain business interests? It is hard for me to see at the present time how the special services to the elderly, the handicapped, and the disabled are likely to be maintained when all appliances are supplied by private retailers through the normal shopping facilities. I would ask the noble Minister what attention have the Government given to the problems of maintaining those services and also the existing schemes of providing low or no cost safety measures.
On a humble note I would ask noble Lords to recognise some of the services which are offered through the gas showrooms and how important they are to certain categories of gas consumer. Some of those services are of the greatest benefit to what we call the poorer consumers in the country, and particularly to the elderly. There is one service which is so welcomed by those people who have difficulty in paying their gas bills and that is the opportunity, through the gas showrooms, to buy and collect savings stamps to pay their gas bills. We all know how much more expensive all energy costs are to all of us in our individual homes. This service ought to be recognised as a valuable service to those less fortunate in the community. That service is a service which amounts to roughly £10 million worth of savings stamps sold every quarter through gas showrooms.
The Minister too readily falls into the habit of speaking of improving the standards of reliability of products and services through competition, but only through private competition and never considering that the competition should be between the BGC and the private retailer. His greatest fault is that he fails to recognise the consumers' viewpoint that they receive an effective and economic service from British Gas. It would be unfortunate if the Government encouraged the consumer to believe that by preventing the gas showrooms from selling appliances, it will mean a better service and better product at a reduced cost. I do not feel that this will be the outcome. There will be an outcome which will be detrimental in the long term to the gas consumer.
In conclusion, I should like us to remember that gas impinges on people's lives in a personal way. It does so through fuel being supplied to the home. In our amendment today we are trying to make it possible to enable individuals to take sensible decisions in their own best interests as to what appliances to install. Also we want to give to the consumer the opportunity to assert his rights and obtain proper redress if he has a genuine complaint or grievance regarding supply or service. That is why I and my noble friends are asking noble Lords once again to support our amendment and add to Clause 11(2) the words:
" and that satisfactory standards of service and supply to consumers are maintained ".
4.46 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I should like to speak in support of the amendment, which certainly makes a

825
contribution to the Bill rather than taking anything away. If anything, we concentrated a great deal on the safety aspects of this Bill, and in particular on the clause to which this amendment relates. It is on the service and supply side that I should like to add a short word because it has been overlooked, and there is some genuine concern among the gas consumers who have not followed the detail of this Bill clause by clause as noble Lords have and who are still a little worried as to where they are going to end up if the Secretary of State exercises these powers as contained in the Bill.
I want to say a word about the showroom side. There may also be a way out for the Government by giving a reassurance that they will look again at the showrooms and retail outlets of all the nationalised energy industries. I have already stated at Second Reading of the Bill that the competitiveness between the nationalised industries is not always to the benefit of the consumer, certainly when choosing equipment. The Electricity Council have given me details that the value of their freehold showrooms is £33 million. The value of the freehold showrooms of the gas boards is in the region of £40 million, and the Coal Board are apparently not aware of the value of their retail outlets and could give me no figures. However, approximately £100 million worth of property is being split up through competitiveness between the nationalised industries.
I submitted at an early stage of our consideration of this Bill that those industries should be brought together and have one showroom to provide a complete range of services, in which the gas showrooms are a part and in which the gas hoards have established a special relationship with their customers which is of some value. If the Government do not want to take this amendment into consideration, could they on the otherhand give an assurance that they are looking into all the retail outlets of all the nationalised energy industries on the basis of the consumers' interests coming first? In their efforts to put this Bill through for mainly doctrinal reasons, the consumer element has been a bad third in various parts of the Bill and in particular in the clause we are discussing.
If the Government, on the other hand, see fit to accept this amendment I hope they will be able to convince themselves, and indeed the consumers not only of gas but of electricity and coal, that they are prepared to look at the whole gamut of retail outlets of the nationalised energy industries for the benefit of the consumer, in which case we would accept their views. If they do not do this, this amendment should be supported if for no better reason than that the consumers of gas can be given this reassurance that we have their interests at heart, certainly on the Opposition Benches in this House.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I too would rise to support this amendment. I am sorry that I was not able to be here when your Lordships' proceedngs started today. There are delays both above ground and underground in transport between here and Scotland today. Accordingly, arriving somewhat out of breath, I content myself with saying only that I should have thought that the Government themselves would have found this amendment well nigh irresistible. I see no reason why a statutory protection for satisfactory
826
standards of service and supply to consumers should be resisted, particularly by this Government in this Bill.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, my name has been mentioned more than once this afternoon, so I feel I should make a brief comment. Time is short and there is more business to do. I am grateful for the sympathy of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher; she made her point very well, in a wide-ranging speech. Since Amendment No. 18A to Clause 9, we have come quite a long way, in that, as noble Lords opposite will agree, we have not only put safety first, which we all agreed was most important, but we have put it in the right place in the Bill; it now appears in Clause 11(2), and that must be read in conjuction with the whole of Clause 14, which is a most important provision in that it gives power to go into homes to see that all appliances are satisfactorily installed, whether they have been put in by British Gas or by private people.
As noble Lords will recall, I supported the insertion of "services and supply to consumers", along with a provision saying that those services should be maintained, and I still agree with that, because until we are well and truly over what will be the difficult hump of putting part of the supply of gas into the hands of private people, we shall not quite know where we are. However, we have ensured that at absolutely every level, from the Secretary of State to Ministers in your Lordships' House, in no way will they agree to the hiving off —that was the original term—of gas showrooms or any part of them unless they are absolutely satisfied that all the prerequisites for safety are maintained and are likely to be maintained in the future.
Like the noble Baroness, I recognise that there are many occasions in courts of law when one has to interpret certain words, and, as we are all aware, words are important and must be as precise as possible in a Bill. For that reason, when the amendment refers to "satisfactory standards", I, as a magistrate, however lowly, must ask myself: what is a satisfactory standard and who is to adjudicate on it? If it came to it in a court of law, a learned judge, counsel or someone else would have to prove what was a satisfactory standard. Although, therefore, as noble Lords will be aware, I agree with the principle that services and supplies to consumers should be maintained, I could not agree to the phrase "satisfactory standards" because it would not hold up in a court of law. In any event, I believe that what is sought is covered elsewhere in the Bill. For that reason, I shall not be able to vote for the amendment on this occasion.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with this amendment we return to a point which was fully discussed on Report, and it is obvious that the explanations which I gave to noble Lords opposite on that occasion were not received with favour. Nevertheless, I shall not go fully down all the avenues which were explored last time. I have said, and I have said consistently, that the amendment is unsatisfactory both in the way in which it has been drafted and in the effects that it could have. It does not get any better by merely repeating time and again, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has sought to do, ably assisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that it is a good amendment.
No doubt all of us have some idea of what we mean

827
by "supplies and services" but, as my noble friend Lady Macleod said, when we actually come to consider the detailed meaning of those words, considerable uncertainty can arise. If we were to postulate a specific disposal—for instance, the disposal of the Gas Corporation's offshore oil interests—then, if we asked each noble Lord who on the first occasion voted for the amendment, what he or she understood by the phrase and how they would define the relationship between that disposal and services and supplies, I suspect we should have almost as many answers as there were noble Lords going into the Division Lobby, and the debate, I dare say, would become heated.
That is no idle question to ask, for it is not an academic matter. If the amendment were written Into the Bill, that is precisely the situation that would be created. It is all too easy to talk about concepts like standards of service and supplies to consumers, but the vagueness of such terms mean that it is difficult to say whether at any given moment one has achieved the maintenance of those standards at a satisfactory level. All concerned, if the amendment were agreed to, would be in a state of uncertainty as to whether particular directions could properly be given; there would be perpetual discussion as to the precise scope of the powers. After a direction had been issued, it would be possible for the BGC to challenge it by dredging up all sorts of relatively minor matters which they might claim would lead to a lowering of standards for the consumer, and, since there are no absolute standards of that kind, the courts would be hesitant to come to a view that the matters were irrelevant.
The danger would be that the imprecise wording would frustrate the purposes of the Bill. I do not suggest for a moment that the corporation would seek to mount a challenge of that type. Of course not. But the wording of the Bill must be proof against any possible challenge on spurious technical grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is always chiding the Government by telling us that it is not what is not in the Bill which counts but what is in the Bill. I would go further and say that not only does what is in the Bill count but the way it is drafted.
I must stress that the amendment is not only badly drafted in the innocent sense that it could no t achieve what it seeks to do, but it would actually threaten to frustrate the Secretary of State in the achievement of the Government's stated objectives. For that reason, it is thoroughly undesirable and could not be accepted, as I have repeatedly said, although perhaps not in quite such trenchant terms. If the amendment were accepted, the disposals could be bogged down and effectively lost in interminable legal dispute, which I am sure is not in the minds of noble Lords opposite, and I am sure that is something they would not wish to have a part in. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that there are many statutory references to "supply", and indeed there are, but there are no statutory references that I know of to "satisfactory standards of supply", let alone "satisfactory services" or "satisfactory types of service".
Then the noble Baroness once more raised the matter of gas showrooms and services to consumers. What she did not mention—and I am sure that it was due to a lapse of memory—was the report and the attitude of
828
the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Government are determined to act upon the problem of gas appliance retailing which the commission highlighted, but it is no part of the Government's decision to act on the report in such a way that the corporation should either cease appliance installation and servicing, or should cease its emergency services; nor should it cease to maintain consumer contact points where advice can be sought and stamps and so on can be bought for the purpose of settling gas bills.
I repeat that so far as showroom policy is concerned, I must stress that the Government are determined to act upon the findings of the commission that the appliance retailing of the gas corporation in its present form is against the public interest. However, having said that, I repeat that the Government will not act until legislative measures can be introduced to protect gas safety. In the meantime, we have made it clear to the gas corporation that we shall consider other solutions to the problems which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission highlighted.
The noble Lord, Lord Tan law, asked whether we would look at the showroom arrangements for all nationalised industries so far as energy is concerned. Well, I think the answer is that we have to go one step at a time, and what we are dealing with at the moment, and what the Bill attempts to deal with, is gas. Whether in the future some other source of energy will have the searchlight of public inquiry switched upon it, I cannot at this stage say.
Therefore I have to say that, although I appreciate the very sincerely held views of noble Lords opposite, and indeed in all parts of the House, on matters of safety as affecting the consumers and the way in which they obtain their supplies and services related to gas, I cannot see that the amendment will in any way ameliorate the position of consumers. For the reasons that I have given I consider that the amendment would act as a potential way of causing legal disruption and preventing this Part of the Bill coming into effect. So in those circumstances I can but advise the House to reject the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I think that the House will be extremely disappointed about the Minister's reply; and not only disappointed, but concerned as well. I should like very briefly to recap the situation which has been referred to by my noble friends Lord Underhill and Lady Fisher of Rednal. The amendment that we earlier proposed would have been an addition to the proviso of Clause 9(1) of the Bill, which, as we know, deals with the disposals of assets. What the House agreed on an all-party vote—and this is of course a non-party matter—was to add, in respect of disposal of assets the words:
" Provided that such disposal shall not result in the impairment of essential services nor imperil supplies to or safety of consumers ".
So there are there three points—the impairment of essential services, the wish not to imperil supplies, and the desire to maintain safety standards. By a majority of 15, I believe, your Lordships, despite Government advice, said that the three aims and objectives were essential to the Bill.

829
As we have said, during the Report stage, on Tuesday, 8th June, the Government were successful in securing the deletion of that proviso. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, had quite rightly been anxious to deal with the safety aspect, and I submit that the amendment which was passed, and which we supported, dealt with safety only. That was the amendment which the noble Baroness proposed to what is now Clause 11(2) of the Bill. So that is quite clear. The Government argued that the noble Baroness's amendment achieved the objectives of what your Lordships, on an all-party basis, had put into the Bill at the earlier stage. But it dealt only with the question of safety, which is of course of very great importance, and concern has been expressed not only here, but also in the country, about the prospects of safety being endangered by the changes in the future structure of the industry. But that was already covered by Clause 14. Nevertheless your Lordships, with the Government's support, agreed to the noble Baroness's amendment. The Government might have come along and said that there was no need to support the noble Baroness because the matter was already covered by Clause 14. But we inserted a double assurance by passing her amendment as well.
However, the other two aspects to which I have made reference—the maintenance of essential services, and the need not to imperil supplies—have not since been dealt with, and the present amendment, for which I expect that there will be all-party support, as there was prevoiusly, is intended to look after those two important aspects. At the earlier stage your Lordships' Committee was anxious to ensure that the need to maintain adequate standards of service and security of supply to the consumer should also be taken into account in the disposal of the assets. In a way, although we are opposed to the principle of the Bill, by proposing the amendment and seeking the support of noble Lords, we are actually helping people to accept the Government's Bill; but we do not mind that, so long as we have the safeguards on all three issues—that is, the other two issues besides the safety issue.
The noble Baroness said that as a magistrate it is very difficult for her to work out what is meant by "satisfactory". Well, I, too, am a magistrate, and I could have said that when she voted for the earlier amendment the noble Baroness would have had some difficulty in saying when the disposal of the assets would result in impairment of essential services and the imperilling of supplies. But we all know what we mean by "satisfactory service", as indeed the noble Baroness knew what she meant, and noble Lords knew what they meant, when they supported in Committee Amendment No. 18A, as it then was.
So the question is whether the House will let the Bill go through with, quite rightly, a concern about, and indeed legislative action to ensure, safety, but without insisting on satisfactory standards of service, and without expressing any concern, as we did earlier, about the need not to imperil supplies, that point having been taken out. It would be quite wrong for the Bill to go back to the other place in that condition, or indeed for us to be seen in the country as not being concerned with the other two matters because the Government had taken them out. This is a non-party issue, and I hope that noble Lords will join us in the Lobbies in order to ensure that the other two aspects of concern
830
which earlier enjoyed all-party support, are safeguarded in the Bill. This is absolutely essential, and I hope that we shall receive support on this very important amendment.
5.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 93.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bacon, B.

Balogh, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bernstein, L.

Mayhew, L.

Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Birk, B.

Molloy, L.

Bishopston, L.

Oram, L.

Blyton, L.

Peart, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Phillips, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Byers, L.

Rhodes, L.

Caradon, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Stamp, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Stewart pf Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Denington, B.

Stone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Tanlaw, L

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Tordoff, L.

George-Brown, L.

Underhill, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Gosford, E.

Hampton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jacques, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Jeger, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Faithfull, B.

Avon, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gainford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Beloff, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Belstead, L.

Gormanston, V.

Bessborough, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Boyd of Merton. V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Caithness, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hartherton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Henley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cockfield, L.

Ilchester, E.

Colyton, L.

Kilearn, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long. V,

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L.

Davidson, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Mancroft, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mansfield, E.

Eccles, V.

Marley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, V.

831

Mottistone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Spens, L.

Newall, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Norfolk, D.

Swinfen, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Terrington, L.

Onslow, E.

Teviot, L.

Orkney, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Pender, L.

Torphichen, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Reay, L.

Valux of Harrowden, L.

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Romney, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

St. John of Blesto, L.

Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Savile, L.

Young, B.

Sharples, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.17. p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 14, line 25, leave out (" except as aforesaid").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in my respectful submission to the House, this is a most important amendment which, indeed, I hope the House will agree, involves the sovereignty of Parliament. When we were discussing the situation in respect of the British National Oil Corporation and the approval by the House indeed, by Parliament as a whole of the very important memorandum and articles of association of the subsidary, Britoil, I ventured to put to the noble Earl the Minister and to the House at the Report stage the following considerations. The nation was being protected by the Government, so we were told, in respect of valuable assets that might be disposed of through subsidaries, by the fact that there were articles of association which protected the nation in the following respects.
First, there would be directors on the board of the subsidiary company however much of the subsidary was disposed of; and, secondly, there would be a protection against, among other things, the question of a transfer to those outside the United Kingdom if such people endeavoured to obtain a substantial interest in the subsidary, that protection being the protection of the special share. Under the articles of Britoil that special share gave the Government the right, through holding that special share, to exercise the vote upon it in various contingencies, which vote gave it control, it amounting to one vote more than all the others that could be cast.
My Lords, we were discussing those provisions in regard to BNOC. The other place did not have much of an opportunity to discuss them because there was only one hour allotted to that discussion on the very important memorandum and articles of association, and the articles were not produced until March. We are looking now at a different situation in the case of British Gas, and in regard to British Gas there has been no discussion at all in the other place about the memorandum and articles of association because, apart from anything else, they were not produced to the other place, and they are not available to us.
This is terribly important, because when I was
832
dealing with the memorandum and articles of association in regard to BNOC, I ventured to say to the House, and specifically to the noble Earl the Minister, that, quite apart from the need in any event when there was any disposal for Parliament to look at the vital protections to the nation given in the memorandum and articles of associations, in what had been produced by way of memorandum and articles for Britoil, the situation to me was quite unsatisfactory.
First, there was the point in regard to protection by directors being appointed by the Government that, in the articles of association, where Government ownership was between 35 per cent. and 20 per cent. the Government were entitled to only one director; and there was no provision at all in the articles—which is quite a usual provision, as those who are concerned in these matters know—to have an alternate director in the event of enforced absence through illness or for any other reason. That would mean that when the proportion of shares held on behalf of the nation had dropped to 35 per cent. to 20 per cent., and there being only one director, a director would not be present because there was no provision for an alternate director at what could be a very vital meeting.
When the proportion drops below 20 per cent.—there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Government from disposing of more than the 51 per cent. which we are told the Government have in mind—there will be no directors there at all and, obviously, therefore, no protection. When it came to the special share, apart from my raising the point that was raised in the hurried debate in another place about how the Government are to know when there is what is the equivalent of what is called a dawn raid on the share or where it looks as though people not resident in the country are trying to get control, then one asked how they were going to discover this, what agency would they employ and how would this be done? There was a much more vital question because in the articles there was provision that at any time the Government could surrender, if they so wished, their one share for a par value; in other words, they could decide that they no longer wanted to hold that special share and that would be a right given to the Government and that meant again that every bit of security was removed.
The noble Earl the Minister decided in his wisdom but with his usual courtesy to remain silent on the questions I asked in that specific regard and, if I may say so, I know of nobody more eloquent when he is silent. I asked the Minister if he would deal with those points and if not then to deal with them between Report and Third Reading. Again, there was an eloquent silence; so that I return to the attack with precisely the same points in mind but, if I may say so, with so much stronger a case because the noble Earl did say in the course of his remarks that the argument, he felt, was not a weighty one in regard to BNOC because the plans in regard to BNOC were known to Parliament. The Government have made them very clear and there have been the draft memorandum and articles of association of Britoil. In regard to British Gas, nothing by way of plans has been made clear and in regard to the memorandum and articles of association, we have not got them.
So it is that this amendment is moved, as I said in the beginning, in protection not of the principles of

833
this Bill but of the sovereignty of Parliament; because if a Secretary of State, whatever his political colour may be, is going to be given the right by a direction and without the matter coming to Parliament, to dispose of national assets by a direction and to do it in regard to subsidiaries owning national assets without Parliament being able the approve the memorandum and articles of association (which are vital in maintaining proper protection for the nation) then, in my view, your Lordships are wasting their time sitting on these Benches and Members are doing the same thing in the other place, because complete power is being given to the executive and being taken away from those who are democratically elected in one place and those who are the custodians for the nation in this House, as I believe we arc, of the legislation which comes to us for approval.
It may be argued that these directions are subject to the negative resolution procedure. We all know what the negative resolution procedure is. First, you have to be terribly observant even to know that you have the chance of negativing a statutory instrument but, if you arc, in this House which, as I said at Report stage, has the great privilege of having on its Benches those who are specialists in company matters, accountancy matters and legal matters, it is the tradition of this House that you must choose a very rare occasion in order to pray against a statutory instrument on negative procedure and, worse, you will face the most terrific unpopularity and be told that you are letting the side down or letting the House down if you venture to go into the Division Lobby or ask for a Division in respect of a Motion negativing a statutory instrument; so that our hands are tied by tradition and we in this House have our procedures laid down for us and by tradition; we have no written standing orders with which to comply and no Speaker to direct us. It is the will of this House. What we are doing in this House when we weaken our powers and have to follow a tradition, is that we are undermining the sovereignty of Parliament. In this spirit, I move this amendment. It has nothing to do with the principal object of this Bill. It has only to do with the fact that on important matters of this kind the Parliament of this country must be sovereign and this House is an important part of that sovereignty.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, at an earlier stage in the course of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me a number of technical questions on the memorandum and articles of association of Britoil which are in existence and are there to be read. Rightly or wrongly, and partly owing to their technical nature, I did not at that stage answer, and nor have I since answered, the noble Lord's questions. Now the noble Lord asks me questions on memorandum and articles of association which do not exist and therefore I ask myself whether I would be well advised on this occasion to answer his questions bearing in mind that on the last occasion I did not. It would be very foolish to try to peer so far into the future in respect of what may happen in relation to Part II of this Bill relating to gas and try and foresee what might be within the memorandum and articles of association of a firm, and try to say what they might mean.
I thought that what the noble Lord was going to say
834
was that, whatever justification there may or may not be for floating off Britoil without a further layer of parliamentary scrutiny, it was a constitutional outrage to do the same for some future company which may be floated off the gas corporation. I would not have been surprised to hear him say that and I would in my turn have said that there is plenty of provision for parliamentary scrutiny so far as Part II of the Bill is concerned because the order transferring shares to the Secretary of State will be subject to negative resolution procedure. Before that, it is likely that the Secretary of State will have to issue a direction to the gas corporation to set up an appropriate subsidiary and that direction will also be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
I would have argued that the amendment as it is set out on the Marshalled List is unnecessary. But the noble Lord does not make that point, and it may well be that after I have sat down one of his noble friends will elaborate on it for him. I do not know whether to make the full answer now but I think that I shall not do so because it has all been said before and I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily.
If I may go back to Britoil for a moment—because that is the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was addressing himself—I see from the Official Report that one of the matters which he asked about was the fact that the articles of association for Britoil contain no provision for directors to appoint alternates. I think that was one of his complaints. That is true. It applies to Government directors just as much as to other members of the Britoil board. The case is that as individuals, as in any other public company, the directors of Britoil will be people who can make a contribution as individuals, and it would be as individuals that they will contribute to the success of the company, and alternate directors would be contrary to the philosophy behind this.
The noble Lord asked about the single special share and the rights which it gives to the Government in effect to enable the Government to prevent any unacceptable change in the control of the company. As the noble Lord will know, the ownership of the single special share does not depend on the continued ownership of any other shares in Britoil or on the directors who may be appointed by the Government, whether such exist or not.
I said at an earlier stage that the Government regarded it as appropriate that they should have the right to appoint two directors so long as they own more than 35 per cent. of the share capital of Britoil, and one director so long as they own more than 20 per cent. If the Government-appointed director fails for some reason to be able to carry out his responsibilities, then the Government will make a new appointment. It is also a fact that if the circumstances became such that the Government wanted to dispose of their single share then of course they could, although I have no doubt that the circumstances of such disposal will be such that there will be no longer any point in the state, as it were, keeping an eye on the affairs of Britoil.
The way in which Parliament in one way or another can keep an eye on the Secretary of State is something of which we should not lose sight. The noble Lord pours a degree of scorn upon the negative resolution procedure so far as your Lordships' House is con-

835
cerned. I quite agree that there is a custom—if not a convention, still less a law or rule—that we do not vote on such matters. Nevertheless, during the time in which I have been in your Lordships' House, on more than one occasion such prayers have been raised and the matter can be debated.
One also has to have regard to what the other place could and can do if the Secretary of State, when he was floating off a subsidiary—whether an oil or a gas subsidiary—failed to act prudently. This is really what we are talking about. lf, for instance, he did not get the price right, however innocently—and this has happened as we know in the past few months—then the Secretary of State is subject to severe parliamentary criticism, and that can be debated. He also of course would be subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee so far as the disposal of shares is concerned. That body is a highly effective monitor of executive actions of government which include a financial element, and of course a floating off of this nature would include that. The precedent of the 1977 sale of Government-held shares in BP, which was a substantial disposal of public assets, is one which I think I can pray in aid. There was no question of prior parliamentary approval. Parliament was informed when the sale was ready to go ahead. The sale went ahead and Parliament exercised the scrutiny that it thought was necessary.
In the circumstances, I appreciate that what it is that this Bill does is unwelcome and—dare I say it? —anathema to noble Lords opposite. However, I hope from the detailed debates that we have had on the various provisions of the Bill—including Clause 11 — and the powers of the Secretary of State, that the noble Lord will see, as he did in Committee, that so far as parliamentary scrutiny is concerned, we are really doing the best that can be done in the circumstances, bearing in mind that at the end of the day there has to be a commercial disposal for a commercial price at the right time and in the right manner.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are a little sorry that the noble Earl has not taken a more constructive attitude to this arrangement. When we get to Third Reading and amendments are put down they sometimes, quite understandably, tend to have a more technical flavour and are kept within a very narrow context of matters that have been discussed on Report and in Committee. It is therefore necessary, when we are considering this amendment, to remember that what we are discussing are the principles that should govern the disposal by the state of interest in a highly profitable and highly efficient industry—the British gas industry—which has consistently made profits, much to the chagrin of the party opposite, and which has delivered to the public at large one of the best services in the provision of gas in the whole of the world. This is indeed what we are discussing.
We do not, and we cannot, here challenge the right of the majority party to enforce its political will. It does it in the other place with its colossal majority, and it can usually, in an appropriate instance, get a majority here by whipping. It can do all these things.
836
All we can do here with any degree of success is to challenge the method and procedure by which this politically monstrous disposal of public assets can in fact be carried out. This is the most we can do.
In connection with the Gas Board, it should be remembered that the powers given to the Secretary of State in Clause 11 of the Bill enable him to require the British Gas Corporation to dispose in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit of—

" (a) any shares of a relevant subsidiary;

(b) the whole or any part of the undertaking of, or any property, rights or liabilities of, a relevant subsidiary; or

(c) any part of the undertaking of, or any property, rights or liabilities of, the Corporation,".

Under Clause 10 of the Bill that right extends to the establishment of subsidiaries. These powers are given to the Secretary of State.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon has dealt with the question of the submission of the memorandum and articles of association of the relevant subsidiary. This forms a very important part of this amendment. All that we are requiring is that the memorandum and articles of association of the relevant subsidiary should be produced to Parliament. The noble Earl quite properly drew a distinction between the position relating to Britoil, where the memorandum and articles are already in existence, but he said that since there existed at the moment no memorandum and articles which might become necessary by reason of the exercise of the powers of the Secretary of State under Section 11, he could not possibly envisage what they would contain. The noble Earl did not even in his usual fashion—which has endeared him to us on previous occasions—give us any form of assurance as to what the future memorandum and articles might contain. He did not even give us the assurance that the safeguards of the state and the safeguards of the corporation would be least equivalent to the safeguards already contained in the memorandum and articles relating to Britoil. He gave us no assurances at all.
The other part of the amendment which is, if I may suggest it, of even more importance, is the submission to Parliament of a memorandum setting out the terms on which the disposal is to be made. What good is it to Parliament that the directions of the Secretary of State have to be incorporated in an order that is subject to negative procedure in another place and also in this House? The order may be as brief or as long, as terse or as verbose, as the Secretary of State may see fit to make it. I would venture to suggest that all that would be in it is the plain, simple, stark and harsh direction of the Secretary of State, ordering the British Gas Corporation or its subsidiaries, as the case may be, to do exactly what he wants them to do and what he has the power to enforce under the Bill as it now stands. What the negative resolution will not provide, I can assure your Lordships, is the full explanation to which Parliament is entitled, setting out the terms on which the disposal is to be made.
The party opposite on many occasions say that they are a party that believe in open government. Here we have a situation where they have taken powers to sell off the whole or part of any undertaking owned by British Gas and any part of British Gas itself, which, I repeat, is one of the most successful public corporations in the world. Yet they will not tell Parliament in ad-

837
vance the terms on which a disposal of any part of the undertaking or any of its subsidiaries is to take place.
I would say to the noble Earl that no rational person would think that that is maintaining the power of Parliament. If these important disposals are to take place—and if they are not important why would the Government bother about them?—what is the objection to letting both Houses of Parliament, but, at a minimum, the Members of another place, have a memorandum well in advance, explaining precisely what is going to be done? This is a policy which is followed by public companies throughout the United Kingdom today. If they propose to sell part of their undertaking, whether they may dispose of shares or anything of that kind and whether there is going to be an acquisition of shares and so on, normally the brokers or the bankers inform the shareholders as to exactly what is being done and why, and why it should be profitable to the shareholders or why it might prove to be unprofitable.
Parliament in regard to these nationalised industries stands in the position of representative of the shareholders, the British public at large. Parliament is entitled to know and debate the terms on which any deal is done on the basis of the direction of the Secretary of State. The negative procedure would not cover that because, as I have explained, there is nothing in any negative procedure, following the laying of an order, which compels the Government to give Parliament any information at all as to why they are doing something or information on the consequences that are likely to flow from it.
This amendment is a very modest one indeed. It ought to appeal to all reasonable men and women anywhere. If the media let the public know that such an amendment exists—I very much doubt whether they will—and if it attracted the interest of one at least of the 14 national newspaper editors, it would of course be plastered all over the papers that the Government propose to proceed so capriciously in furtherance of the will of the Secretary of State to do almost precisely what he wants to do with national assets without informing Parliament in advance—and regardless on what side of the House any noble Lords may sit I invite them in the interests of the public at large, to support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I was hoping so much that the noble Earl was not going to follow the example that he said himself was not a very good example of the Front Bench by not rising to answer a speech when it was a challenging speech, a fair speech and a speech which put very material points to the Government. It is with sorrow that I see him sitting in his seat and not adding anything more to what he has already said.
The sorrow is increased by my having on two occasions put points to the noble Earl to which he has not replied. His reason given to the House at Report stage was that I had put technical points and, as I understood him, he wanted to consider them. That is a perfectly fair point for any Minister to make. He cannot be expected to be briefed upon every aspect, and certainly not upon technical matters. If the noble Earl, with the courtesy that I usually associate with him, had said at Report stage that he wished to have time to consider and would write to me, I would
838
have been thoroughly content. But although the technical points, and they were material points, were raised last time, I received no communication between Report stage and Third Reading.
Being the optimist that I am, and having faith and confidence in Government Ministers to fulfil the duties which this House expects of them, I waited for today. Again, I put my points absolutely courteously, with the Minister having had a full opportunity to appraise himself of the answers to the technical points. All I got was a deathly silence, and that is all that the House got, too. Then, when the points raised this time were not of a technical nature but of a constitutional nature, again there was no answer, except that the Secretary of State, if he behaved badly, would no doubt be criticised —not a very healthy answer—and that, furthermore, there was the Public Accounts Committee which might decide to take this into their purview; because, of course, they do not look at everything. If the Secretary of State behaved badly and foolishly, and endangered the nation's finances and its assets, then, no doubt, the Public Accounts Committee would do their job and criticise him.
What are we all here for? What is Parliament here for? It is to check the powers, if they get too great, of Secretaries of State and Ministers, to whatever political party they belong. If this amendment is not carried today, we will have set a very sad precedent, with a Government Front Bench being able to impose their will, without answering a debate properly, and with a Secretary of State in future, of whatever political party, being given powers without informing Parliament, without consulting Parliament and treating Parliament as this House has been treated today—with disdain.
5.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bacon, B.

Listowel, E.

Balogh, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bernstein, L.

Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bishopston, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Briginshaw, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Byers, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peart, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shinwell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

George-Brown, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stone, L.

Gosford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Jacques, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

839

Underhill, L.

White, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Wigg, L.

Winstanley, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aircy of Abingdon, B.

MacAndrew, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Avon, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beloff, L.

Mansfield, E.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Newall, L.

Cathcart, E.

Norfolk, D.

Chelwood, L.

Onslow, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Orkney, E.

Cockfield, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Pender, L.

Colyton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reay, L.

Daventry, V.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V.

Romney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Dilhorne, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Eccles, V.

Savile, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathclydle, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Terrington, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Teviot, L.

Gormanston, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Torphichen, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Valux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vivian, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Killearn, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Westbury, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Windlesham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Young, B.

Lyell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Provisions as to regulations, orders etc.]:
6.3 p.m.
Lord Beswick Lord Beswick moved Amenmdent No. 6:
Page 39, line 21, at end insert (", provided that any duty of which the Corporation is to be relieved is specified in the direction.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. At each stage we have listened carefully, when the Ministers have chosen to speak, to the arguments put up by them against the amendments moved from this side and, where possible, we have then endeavoured to meet the Government part way by moving more modest amendments. This is a process which, I suggest, could and I emphasise the word "could"—lead to legislation which would survive, but so far the Government have rejected the concept of reasonable compromise. They have
840
rejected the possibility of what I would describe as durable legislation. However, with this amendment the very last of our amendments—they have one more opportunity to recognise moderation and to accept what is, by any standard, a modest provision.
At the Report stage I suggested that the powers sought by the Secretary of State—to be enabled to direct that the corporation should do certain things "notwithstanding any duty imposed on it by or under any enactment"—were sweeping powers. The Minister said that I was exaggerating. If the power to ignore any duty under any enactment is not a sweeping power, then it would seem to me that words are losing their meaning.
The Minister insisted that the words of which we complained had little application and that there was—and I quote from col. 502—
"scope for a limited degree of interaction ".
In the same column, however, the Minister argued that, without the power which they sought—to override any duty imposed upon it by or under any enactment—there would be considerable confusion. All concerned, he said, would be in a state of undesirable uncertainty. If there is undesirable uncertainty of that kind, I would suggest that there is a possibility that the powers cover a wider area, or are likely to cover a wider area than was at first suggested. It seems to me that there will be undesirable uncertainty, even though the amendment which we moved at the Report stage was defeated, and that the Government do now have the power to override any duty imposed on the corporation by or under any enactment.
I asked one question of the noble Earl the Minister at the Report stage, and again I put the same question to him. It would be useful to have his answer. I asked then whether the words "notwithstanding any duty imposed covered the duties laid down in the present Bill. Do those words give power, for example, to override Clause 14(2), about which we had discussions earlier? I am not asking for an assurance that the Secretary of State would not direct the corporation to do anything contrary to Clause 14(2), but I am asking about the legal situation. Do the words of which I complain have the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to override, for example, Clause 14(2)? I want to know whether the powers which Parliament now has in the Bill give to the Secretary of State this very significant and rather frightening power to override duties to maintain services. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that even though those powers are in the Bill we should be quite clear as to their effect if directives are issued. All these matters should be set out clearly and straightforwardly. That is why I now move this amendment, a more modest amendment than the one which I moved at Report. I simply say that if the corporation is to be directed to take certain action and this action involves the disregarding of duties, then these duties so affected should be specified for all to see. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I support this amendment. The House is in debt to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his persistent pursuit of this theme. To delegate to the executive a power to give directions,

841
irrespective of whether the giving of those directions is in conflict with a statutory duty incumbent on the person to whom the directions are given, strikes me as being—I must be careful how I describe it, because the noble Earl is wont to accuse us of hyperbole and the like—perhaps somewhat extravagant.
I had some difficulty in deciding how it should be described constitutionally in the light of the noble Earl's reaction to the arguments which have been directed against him on this particular provision. I have in mind particularly the very reasonable arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I wondered, in pondering, whether it should be described as a constitutional outrage or whether it is a kind of constitutional aberration. But certainly there is something wrong about it. I imagine that the late Lord Hewart—I have referred to him before in the context of this matter—must be turning in his grave. When he in the early 1930s, I think it was, published his polemic which he entitled The New Despotism, attacking the then growing practice of delegating to the Executive powers which had previously been guarded as the powers of Parliament, I remember myself as a young and pretty ignorant law student thinking that perhaps the old gentleman was getting unnecessarily excited. I felt that, after all, if one was going to govern effectively one had to have what I believe the noble Earl himself described during one of the debates on this very provision as a sensible executive discretion. We do not quarrel with that.
I imagine that what concerned Lord Hewart and what perhaps escaped me as an ignorant young student of law, was that, if Parliament was not vigilant in this context, the appetite of the Executive for powers would grow and grow and grow. That is what has happened. This Bill is surely a high watermark and, with these kinds of consideration in mind, I hope that the House will accept this very modest amendment. It does not go so far as many of us felt we ought to have gone at the earlier stage—but, if the Government could not accept that, perhaps they will accept this amendment.
6.11 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this is not the first time that Clause 32(3) has occupied the attention of the House. I am sorry that there still seems to be considerable uncertainty as to the meaning of this clause. Obviously there is that uncertainty or we should not be having yet another debate in this form. I hope that I can once more put the clause into perspective and correct any misapprehensions there may be and also say why we find this amendment unacceptable.
On the last occasion when this matter was considered, some noble Lords imputed what I might call a deep constitutional issue to it. We really got into the realms of the fanciful, if not the colourful. We had mentioned The New Despotism, which has been referred to again today; and we had the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—who will no doubt spring to his feet when I sit down—talking about Magna Carta. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, whose ancestor actually signed the document, is not too far from his place today.
Joking apart, there are two important restrictions
842
on the duty to comply with directions which limit the scope of the words,
notwithstanding any duty imposed on it by any other enactment ".
Firstly, the directions to which Clause 32(3) apply can be given only in certain circumstances. They relate solely to the powers of disposal set out in the first two clauses of Parts I and II and to the common carrier provisions in Clauses 15, 16 and 17, and those powers have specific objectives in mind. The powers of direction, therefore, are themselves restricted in scope and are not so widely drawn as it has been suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked me whether Clause 14(2) is included; the answer is, no— because it is something not related to the powers of disposal.
Secondly, the duties referred to in the parenthesis to which I have just referred are those, and only those, duties imposed specifically on either corporation. This means duties imposed on that corporation by name or in circumstances which are equally specific. The words "any enactment" therefore apply to the small category of enactments which impose individually identified duties on one or other of the corporations. What we are really talking about are just two Acts; the Gas Act 1972 and the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975.
There is no question of the words creating the wide-scale abandonment of our British legal system, of which we are all so proud, which some noble Lords suggested at Report stage. In other words—and I want to emphasise this—the words "any enactment" do not apply to all Acts. The corporations would not be able to ignore those statutory duties which apply to everybody. It would not be right to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested on the last occasion, that the corporations would be able to ignore the duties imposed on them by the Companies Acts or by the various Acts imposing taxation. It would indeed be a curious state of affairs if that interpretation were correct—but it is not. In other words, the tailpiece to Clause 32(3) has a precise and limited effect and it cannot bear the wide-ranging interpretation that some noble Lords have attempted to give to it.
A few examples. In the case of the British Gas Corporation, their principal duty is set out in Section 2(1) of the Gas Act 1972. The corporation are required,
" to develop and maintain an efficient, coordinated and economical system of gas supply in Great Britain, and to satisfy, so far as it is economical to do so, all reasonable demands for gas in Great Britain."
Another important duty on the gas corporation, in Section 14, is to secure that, taking one year with another, the combined revenues of the corporation cover the outgoings and equipment reserve allocations. A limited number of other duties are specified in the Gas Act 1972—for example, the corporation has to promote the welfare, health and safety of its employees; to settle a general programme of gas research; to comply with directions arising out of representations made by the National Gas Consumers' Councils, and so on. However, the Act specifies a relatively small number of duties for the corporation.

843
In the case of BNOC, as I said on the previous occasion, the corporation does not have the kind of statutory duties which are comparable to those of a public utility such as the gas corporation—but I can quote an example. Under Section 10 of the 1975 Act, BNOC has the duty to prepare accounts, including accounts for subsidiaries, on an annual basis. As part of the preparations for flotation, however, accounts will have to be prepared for Britoil part way through the year. We would not wish there to be any doubt or confusion on the part of the corporation that it should prepare accounts for a broken period.
If I may quickly take the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, presented it as being a reasonable compromise, which he hinted would not be acceptable to the Government because the Government are not susceptible to compromises, reasonable or otherwise. What the amendment seeks to do is to anticipate, or rather to ask the Government to anticipate, in each direction every possible legal objection that might be advanced by a corporation which disagreed with the Government's policies. I can liken it to suggesting that the Finance Bill should include a comprehensive code on tax avoidance covering not only all schemes already devised but also all those which might be contemplated at some stage in the future. To endeavour to cover every possible legal argument that might be advanced in a direction might confer a wholly misplaced legitimacy on some insubstantial contentions, implying wrongly that, but for the provisions of Clause 32(3), those matters would have stood in the way of the direction.
If we were to accept this amendment, there would be the real danger of inviting the Secretary of State to pick and choose between the statutory duties imposed on the corporation. But, because many of these duties, particularly those imposed on BGC, are worded in such general terms, there could well be scope to argue that any duty not specified in the direction was being breached. This would lead to the confusion that Clause 32(3) seeks to avoid. In practice, the amendment would invite the Secretary of State to relieve the corporations of all their duties. This I believe would have the opposite effect to that intended. And the Government do not wish to relieve the corporations wholesale of their duties. The only purpose of the tailpiece to Clause 32(3) is to prevent a particular duty from in some measure frustrating the Government's declared policy. I think that is the nub of the argument. If one looks at it in this light and in the light of the explanations I have given as to the scope of the tailpiece I do hope the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl, with his usual powers of anticipation, said that I might rise after he concluded his remarks, and he was kind enough in those remarks to reflect upon a speech which I had inflicted upon your Lordships on a previous occasion when I had evoked, with some emotion, I may say, the principles of Magna Carta. A very touching reference was made to a Peer who is very much respected in this House and whose ancestry goes back to the days of Magna Carta, and in some way the noble Earl seemed to get some comfort from the fact that the noble Lord
844
concerned was somewhere near this Chamber. My best information is that the noble Lord is seeking comfort in regard to this breach of Magna Carta in another room in your Lordships' House.
If I may immediately come to the argument which appears to have developed upon this reasonable amendment, the noble Earl was good enough on this occasion to deal with the arguments that had been advanced by my noble friend, and for that courtesy and kindness I thank him. But there was not very much substance, if I may say so, in the reply to the debate, and I hope to show very briefly why I say that. We are no longer arguing about the provision in the Bill which many of us find extremely distasteful that exempts the Secretary of State from having to comply with existing enactments. That is done, from our point of view, with some degree of distaste. But we have had a debate upon that, the will of the House has been expressed, and, from that point of view, that is the end of the matter for this Bill. It may not be the end of the matter from the point of view of precedents which might be set, but there it is. That argument is over.
My noble friend Lord Beswick advanced an entirely different argument, and said this: let us take it for granted that the noble Earl the Minister is right, that it is only within a very narrow province that the Secretary of State is enabled to ignore an enactment, and that, from that point of view, surely Parliament ought to be able to give him this power. however unusual it may be, without having any fears as to the future. We have swallowed that argument; we have to; there was a vote upon it and it was decided. All this amendment asks is that there should be a frank disclosure when the Secretary of State is in fact going against an existing enactment, is in fact taking away a power or a duty of the gas utility or the oil corporation. It merely asks that he in his direction says what he is doing and is frank and open about it. Parliament, in deciding whether or not there ought to be a Motion negativing the statutory instrument which contains the direction, will at least be put upon notice of the fact that an enactment is being breached, a duty is no longer to be fulfilled, a power is being removed.
What answer can there be to this amendment? Is it that the Secretary of State feels that he need not be frank with Parliament? Is it that the Secretary of State is trying to hide from the public that an enactment is being breached? What can there be by way of answer to this amendment? I hope that your Lordships will take it for granted that the noble Earl the Minister is wrong when he turns to these Benches and says that we find ourselves so hostile to the principle of this Bill that we are out to attack it at every point purely because of our opposition to it. It has been conceded —it has to be—according to our democratic process that the principle of the Act will be fulfilled, but it is our duty to see that in the powers that are given under this Act we protect the nation, we protect the public, and we protect the frankness with which the Secretary of State ought to act. That is embodied in this amendment, and that is all this amendment says.
6.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 62; Not-Contents 75.

DIVISION NO.4

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bacon, B.

McGregor or Durris, L.

Barrington, V.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Bernstein, L.

Mayhew, L.

Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Birk, B.

Oram, L.

Bishopston, L.

Peart, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Phillips, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rhodes, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Shannon, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shinwell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

George-Brown, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stone, L.

Gosford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Greenway, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Listowel, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CENTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Long, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Avon, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Newall, L.

Cathcart, E.

Norfolk, D.

Chelwood, L.

Onslow, E.

Cockfield, L.

Orkney, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Daventry, V.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V.

Romney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Eccles, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Elton, L.

Savile, L.

Faithful, B.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenarthur. L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Terrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Torphichen, L.

Harmer-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hatherton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Inglewood, L.

Westbury, L.

Killearn, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Wynford, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.34 pm.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I am not going to inflict a long speech upon the House at this stage, because the matter has been considered at very considerable length by your Lordships. When I moved the Second Reading I described it as a major piece of legislation, and that, indeed, is what it is. We have had many debates and they have been thorough. I do not complain of that at all, particularly because the deliberations of the other place, so far as this Bill is concerned, were truncated.
Our oil and gas reserves are of fundamental importance to the economy of the country. I said that, or words like it, on Second Reading and I make no apology. The safe and efficient management of these resources will be of even greater importance in the future. We believe that the proposals set out in this Bill, controversial as they undoubtedly are, will be in the best interests of the country in the years to come.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in our deliberations. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale who have borne the heat of the fray at various moments. Also I pay a great compliment, I hope, to my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve who, having pointed out what could be described as a deficiency in the Bill, was then good enough to see a way in which that difficulty could be overcome.
I also include in my thanks the very considerable and distinguished battery which has faced me—far removed from the South Atlantic we may be—the effect of which I sometimes felt was similar to the naval part of our task force. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, two entirely separate and distinct individuals—each had his own particular brand of fire power. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who, if he is not called noble and learned, certainly ought to be from the depth of his constitutional knowledge, and to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has his own expertise and, indeed, to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, representing stoutly as always the consumer interests. Then, of course, there was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, who I hope as he reflects upon this Bill when it reaches the statute book, will not consider it perhaps quite such the constitutional outrage as he thought. I pay tribute to other noble Lords who have taken part, not least, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who has caused me on more than one occasion to think, and to think furiously. To all these noble Lords, and others, I and my noble friends are indeed indebted. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
6.37 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I shall also try to be as brief as possible, but this is an important Bill and after many days of debate in the other place and in this House

847
a good deal still remains in doubt. I was rather interested this afternoon when my noble friends brought in Magna Carta in support of some of our assertions. I suppose I ought to declare an interest because I understand that one of the statues of the Barons of Runnymede which happens to be behind me, is of one of my maternal kinsmen and I always have the impression that he is keeping a eye on me to see that I do my duty in the way in which he did his so nobly in the centuries gone by.
However, today I am not concerned with statues, so much as with statutes. We have had before us legislation which has been very contentious, and my noble friends and I have said from the start that we should behave responsibly in recognising, if not accepting, the purposes of the measure and would do our best constructively to bring about some improvements. But I am rather sorry that, after all our efforts and the contributions by my noble friends and others who have given support to the Opposition both in argument and in the Lobbies, very little has been achieved in getting the Government to rethink some of the important aspects of this legislation.
The Minister referred a moment ago to his Second Reading speech. I recall that it seemed to be lacking in any intention to bring about changes in our two great national assets of oil and gas in such a way that the public interest would be enhanced. The noble Earl said that the main purpose was to restrict or to curtail the area of public enterprise. We also know that the aim of the Bill is not only to fragment the industry in privatisation, but to bring in some currency to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This has been quite evident in a number of privatisation measures which have come before both Houses of Parliament.
In the last election the electorate decided to have a new housekeeper in the form of the Prime Minister to look after our national affairs. Although we are told from time to time that as a result of the changes brought about by the Government's policies we must cut our coat according to our cloth, balance our budgets and so on—we know, of course, that there have been many cuts in the essential services of our national household: in services, education, housing and in other ways affecting the standards of life of the inhabitants of the national household—here, of course, we have the worst form of the selling of the capital assets of the household, the seedcorn on which the future prosperity of our national family depends.
We have had the Forestry Bill, a two-clause Bill which says that the aim is not to enhance our forestry, to cut down on imports of timber and paper, but to sell off land for purposes even other than forestry so that money goes into the national Exchequer. We have the same privatisation not only in oil and gas but also in transport. We have it in fuel and power; we have it in communications, and many other areas will be subject to this fragmentation and giving away of essential assets.
In the case of the industries affected by this Bill the Government are selling a vital part of our heritage for a mess of potage. Indeed, in the sale of national assets we are not selling parts of our national household, such as art treasures or assets of historic or architectural merit; we are selling assets—as we are today in this
848
Bill—essential to the wellbeing of all who live in these islands. Some of them, of course, will pass to foreign control. We have tried to get through amendments to stop that. Not only are we selling arms to our enemies, as we all know from recent concern, but these assets of our fuel and power will, in some cases in the future, also be sold to our foreign competitors.
The House is now considering the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. If we could table an amendment, it would be to the effect that it ought to pass away, because we do not believe that the best interests of the country will be served by it in the future. Few Bills have had such a muted welcome, even by Government supporters who, even if in agreement with the political objectives, have said that they have grave misgivings about many aspects, not least of course the future of the industries being privatised.
The House recognises—as, indeed, does the country—that this is no ordinary privatisation of two nationalised industries. First and foremost, they are two of our great national resources, of strategic importance in time of emergency—in such a stage as we have been passing through, and we are still not out of it yet—and, of course, of vital interest in time of peace, both from the domestic and the industrial aspects. Could there have been anything more foolish in the last few months of the Falklands crisis as the Government's blind insistence on going ahead with the fragmentation, and the controversy over this Bill when they have reserved the right, quite properly, of course, to commandeer private property for public purposes?
However, as I say, the Opposition have acted honourably in recognition of the principle of the Bill, although not in acceptance, in seeking to improve it in many important details. It is to be regretted that the House of Lords, whose role has been seen as that of a revising Chamber, has heard many constructive debates with contributions from all sides, only to be met by the blind insistence of the Government, through their Ministers, that the legislation must go through largely unchanged.
The most important amendments have included those seeking to make Ministers responsible to Parliament—a constitutional debate in which my noble friends took part today and on previous occasions. Clause 32, as we have pointed out, is quite notorious in giving Ministers powers in relation to BNOC and BGC to override any enactments which, in the past, Parliament has considered necessary for the public interest: to jackboot the well-thought-out and considered parliamentary requirements. As I say, Clause 32 is notorious for overriding powers. It gives the Secretary of State for Energy powers in relation to company law, in relation to the sale of assets, to such an extent that people could be landed in court. There could be violations of the legal requirements. There was the attempt only a short while ago in this House to put in some safeguards about the standards of services and the maintenance of proper supplies to the consumer, having dealt first, as I have said, with safety. That assurance was not voted into the Bill; it was voted out by the Government at a previous sitting.
We have also sought many other assurances. As I have mentioned, one of the main aims of the Bill is insistence on selling off assets at any price. If we are to say that these assets must be sold, then we

849
cannot guarantee a proper return to the public, whose assets they are; they have to be sold at any price. We have had the very grave national concern about the sale of Amersham International—another very successful and prosperous nationalised industry—and we know that in a few days speculators, who have made no contribution to the public good, netted a return of something like £20 million from the assets owned by the rest of us. At the same time, nurses and others have been told that 4 per cent. is reasonable, and that to want more is being greedy.
This inconsistency has gone on. So in the debates it has been shown that the Secretary of State has been given massive powers. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was typical of the concern, even on the Government side, when he said on 14th June at column 491:
" I should like to support the spirit of the amendment "—
that is, the Opposition amendment—
"The problem of sub-delegated legislation raises serious constitutional problems which affect individual liberty."
But despite that the House saw fit to support the Government in refusing any of the reasonable safeguards which my noble friends and I wished to have in the Bill.
It was only a few days ago that we debated the Employment Bill; in fact, it was just after the second day of Report of this Bill. Then noble Lords expressed concern about the trade unions being above the law. They said that this was quite improper. We have given the Secretary of State for Energy the right to walk tall; he is even taller now because of the action of this House and, indeed, of the other place, in making him above the law. I believe that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who, rightly, once said:
" No matter how high you are, the law is above you ".
That is no longer the case, because we have the evidence in this measure and we have the exception in this Bill; the Secretary of State has asked to be above the law and the will of this House has elevated him to that rare position. As one of our noble and learned Lords has hinted, if not said, this afternoon, the danger is that this might be a precedent for other legislation. So the height of the Secretary of State stretches from the lowest levels of the gas pipe-lines and installations in the earth to the top of the oil rigs over which he will have domination as he ensures that the industry is sold off to the private sector. This, I am sure, is not a precedent which we would want.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that he felt that the Government wanted to privatise British Gas, for instance, in order to see whether it could be run more efficiently by the private sector. But why pull up a blooming and productive plant or vegetable in order to see whether it is going to grow better if you plant it in another place? The logic of his argument is that if those industries are not better under private enterprise they will be returned to public ownership. If the gas and oil sectors are not as efficient after privatisation, will he indicate whether they will be returned to public ownership once again? Is he accepting the logic of the principle that a number of private industries ought now to be subjected to the competition of the public sector as well? These are
850
some of the questions one might put to the Government after these debates.
We have wanted to have other assurances, which I do not need to detail at this time. The discussion here has shown the widespread praise which has been rightly bestowed on the British Gas Corporation in particular. I recall, as indeed will other noble Lords, the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Miles, in an earlier stage of the Bill on 11th May at col. 124 when, having started off in a way that suggested that he, like others, criticised nationalisation, said:
It cannot, surely, be made more successful than it has been…Thus I submit that the Bill aims at cutting a particularly successful nationalised enterprise down to size, in order to maim and shackle it, not for the sake of common sense or justice, or for the general wellbeing, but for the sake of rigid dogma. This seems to me to be a topsy-turvy version of the very tenets which the Government claim to embrace."
Those were his comments on that particular day.
My colleagues and I, with the support of noble Lords in other parties, have spent a great deal of time, much of it on a non-party basis, with amendments which have had a technical, legal, constitutional, financial and scientific merit, and we have got very few answers from the Government in respect of them. The Government have in many cases had no answers to make. It may well be that there is some reason given in the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on 11th May at col. 149 when he said:
" As I tried to say earlier, we have not made any final decisions about privatisation of the gas corporation's oil assets, and still less about the methods which would be adopted to do that."
It is a pretty frank and dangerous admission rather late in the day after such considerable debate to say that on this important measure concerning two of our most vital industries the Government have not yet really made up their mind.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon on an earlier debate raised questions about the BNOC articles of association which arrived rather late in the day. Today he has had an admission that the articles concerning the BGC are not yet available. This House has been in a way snubbed by saying, "We want the Bill but do not ask us too much about the details" because either they will not stand investigation, or they are still thinking their way through. The concern of the House, which reflects the concern of the country, regarding the future pros— spects of these industries has not been satisfied.
I feel sure that the Opposition and those who gave us support have won the arguments, but not the votes. We arc grateful to all those who supported us and who have contributed constructive thinking to our debate. We have won the arguments, but not the votes. I have a fear that the time may well come when the country will come to recognise that later, but very much to its cost. Although we thank the noble Lords opposite for the co-operation they have given to us as far as possible in this debate, one has to recognise the difficulty which they have had in trying to explain a Bill which is not yet fully ready. I hope that, in the process, when the Government are concerned with finalising some of the provisions, they will take into account some of the views expressed by noble Lords on all sides.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I just want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for his kind words directed

851
towards myself and these Benches. Certainly his firepower, and that of his colleagues on the Front Bench, was quite superior, with the back-up force from the department to make sure that this Bill goes through. The only point I wish to make at the end of what has been a long, detailed and complex bit of legislation is that we from the Opposition Benches, and certainly from my own position on the Liberal Benches, sometimes feel quite inadequate to deal with a Bill of this kind and to give it justification from what is called the alternative point of view.
There are so many factors that have come out during the course of this Bill in terms of the technical side, the constitutional side, and also the need for overall reform which appear to have been missing in the presentation of this Bill in its course through Parliament.
sincerely hope that, when the details of the debates we have had in your Lordships' House on this Bill come to be analysed,when it comes to the reform of this House they will realise that there is a far greater need for Opposition speakers on technical matters to be better briefed, and possibly with the assistance of civil servants from the Department of Energy in this particular case, if the Opposition is to do a proper job with a Bill of this size and complexity, and if it is to have any meaning as it passes through this House.
The remarks have already been made about this Bill, and I see there is obvious impatience from the other Front Bench to get rid of it and pass it on. All I am saying is that we have spoken with extreme brevity on all occasions from these Benches. This Bill has raised issues far beyond it. I hope it will be taken into consideraton when it comes to the reform of this House as to how Opposition speakers, certainly from my Party and from any other party, are able to do justice not to their voters but to the people as a whole, be they consumers of energy, or on any other matters that come before us in a way that we feel it is our duty to do and in the most effective way possible. This is not the position at this present time.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I would echo the regrets expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and concur in the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, with regard to the difficulties of Opposition spokesmen on technical Bills of this kind. My impression is that your Lordships' deliberations this afternoon have taken rather longer than had been anticipated. With that in mind, while saying that I like the Bill no better now than we on this Bench did when it started, I shall content myself with saying only that I suppose the circumstance that nothing more extravagent than "outrageous" was used as an adjective to describe Clause 32(3) is probably a great tribute to the charm and skill of the noble Lord the Lord Advocate, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I should like to support something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. We really ought now in this cradle of democracy to find a different way of considering a Bill of this kind. Recently I helped with others to send upstairs a Bill designed to consider the erection of a car park in Shrewsbury. We sent it up to
852
a Select Committee, and it was given careful consideration up there. There is a case for having a select committee procedure for discussing a Bill of this kind.
When the inevitable reaction against this Government sets in and they are relieved of power and office, this piece of legislation will be seen as one of the most pernicious in their programme. With oil and gas, we are not dealing with industries that have failed the nation or with an area of the economy where the trade unions have been reluctant to adjust to new circumstances or with public corporations which have made great unserviced demands on the public purse. Far from it. We are dealing with highly innovative and profitable industries, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Bishopston that it is precisely that profitability which has led to the Bill.
I was going to deal with some of the smaller details of the Bill which indicate, in my view, that the charge of prejudice against the Government is justified. I will not go into all those details, but I must refer to a particular incident. We tried to ensure that, if extra construction costs were incurred for the benefit of a third party, the responsibility for meeting those costs would fall on the third party. Eventually the Minister was frank enough to tell us why they could not accept that mandatory provision. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is in print in the Official Report as saying that there might be a case, infrequently, he admitted, where,
" those making representations were individually not yet…certain of their plans to commit themselves to meeting the additional costs."—[Official Report, 14/6/82; col. 457.]
Is it remotely conceivable that the present Government would ever take powers to compel a private company to incur capital costs to provide a facility which at some future time a public corporation might be so certain of their plans that they might commit themselves to using that facility? Of course not. I do not think "prejudice" is too strong a word to describe the attitude behind provisions of that kind.
I speak this evening because I wish to refer to something else which deserves language stronger than "prejudice". I am thinking of a speech made by the Minister of Transport last Friday. He is reported as saying that the remarkable achievements of the British forces in the Falklands should be followed (and I quote from the Saturday edition of the Daily Tele-graph)—
" by tougher policies over nationalised industry ".
That seems a dangerous line of thought. There will be many, in the military services as well as in the public services, Mho will question the right of a Conservative politician to quote the bravery of the national armed forces as justification for handing over national assets to private entrepreneurs. If that line of propaganda is now to be pursued, it is in order to ask what rewards will be given to the absentee share.. holders of the private sector companies who became involved in the Falklands exercise and how those payments compare with the payments to public servants who gave their all in that fight. If this sort of debate is to follow from the Falklands, then we are in for a very unfortunate stage indeed in our history.
Over the decades I have never been an addict of nationalisation. I have consistently said that many of my party friends and colleagues have much to learn

853
in this field of public enterprise. It seems to me that the great tragedy in the past year or two is that so much time and energy have been spent in trying to prove that one form of ownership is superior to another when we should have concentrated our attention on improving both. The Bill is entirely negative. It deals with disposals and threats of disposals. There is nothing constructive about it and it does not deserve to pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The references are to Bill No. 105 as first printed for the Commons.]
1Clause 6, page 4, line 8, leave out (" and (b) in section ") and insert—
("(b) for subsection (2) of section 21 there shall be substituted the following subsection—
" (2) The Secretary of State may by order fix a period in each year during which no person shall take or wilfully kill or injure—

(a) any species of deer named in the order other than red deer; or

(b) any hybrid of any species of deer named in the order,

and he may fix a different period for males and females of the species or, as the case may be, of the hybrid so named.";
(c) in section 22 at the end there shall be added the following new subsection—
" (2) Subject to section 33 of this Act, if any person without legal right to take or kill deer on any land or without permission from a person having such right removes any deer carcase from that land, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 for each carcase in respect of which the offence was committed or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both and to the forfeiture of any carcase illegally removed by him or in his possession at the time of the offence."; and
(d) in sections 22 and ").
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. It may be convenient if I indicate some convenient groupings of amendments. I hope the House will agree that Nos. 2 to 6 might be taken en bloc; Nos. 7 to 10 en bloc; Nos. 12 and 13 together; Nos. 14 to 16 en bloc; and Nos. 17 and 18 together.
Lord Northfield: That is being suggested without consultation, my Lords. Amendment No. 2 raises quite different issues from No. 5.
Lord Campbell of Croy: In that case, my Lords, I suggest that Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 be taken separately.
I should explain why I am piloting through the last stages of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur sponsored it and piloted it through its stages in
854
your Lordships' House before it went to the other place. But today he cannot, for the best possible of reasons; since the Bill was last in your Lordships' House, he has become a Lord-in-Waiting and joined the Government, and I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing him well in his new appointment and I am sure he will acquit himself with great merit in it. In the coming weeks he is likely to spend a great deal fo thime here on the Government Front Bench and he will be lucky if he sees a deer forest for many weeks, even from the air, because his work as a helicopter pilot has also been curtailed by his new appointment. I congratulate him on the passage of the Bill now through both Houses.
The other place found time for it, and they were also able to find time in a committee, so that the Commons have put to us the amendment before us today. I commend those amendments. They do not alter the purposes of the Bill. Indeed, I believe they improve them. The first amendment makes an important addition. Others confirm points which were raised in this House but needed examination before acceptance. We must recognise that deer need to be protected from forms of poaching which can only be described as unscrupulous savagery. The high price which venison can fetch is the temptation. The offenders usually now operate in organised gangs with modern sophisticated equipment designed for wild areas of hill and moor, and the amendment particularly helps to deal with that situation.
The ferocity and cruelty which characterise those activities cannot be excused on any grounds. The House will not be surprised that the Bill has been approved by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It has also proceeded through both Houses with the close co-operation of the main organisations concerned. The amendment does three things. First, it adds the offence of wilful injury to the offence in each case where wilful killing would be an offence in Sections 21(2) and 22 of the parent Act. Secondly, paragraph (b) fills a gap in the Act by providing that close seasons may be laid down for hybrids as for pure species.
Thirdly, paragraph (c) blocks a loophole that poachers had found in the law. It makes it an offence to remove a carcase from land without legal right or permission. Under the existing law it is an offence to take or kill deer without legal right, but the courts have ruled that "take" must mean taking alive. By this amendment we are aiming to prevent a common device where one man shoots a deer and leaves it for his accomplice to pick up. The amendment puts it beyond doubt that the latter (the man who picks it up) is also committing an offence.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in offering good wishes and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and I express our sorrow that he now has to be silent at the final stage of his own Bill. As most of the amendments come before the House I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating how much I appreciate the

855
Government's acquiescence to so many of the points that I raised when the Bill was discussed in your Lordships' House. The noble Earl, who has kindly explained to me that he cannot be here for the remaining stages, may remember being somewhat reluctant to accede to a number of my proposals, and so I feel that for this apparent change of heart the word "acquiescence" is a fair word to use; obviously I am grateful.
I think that all of us in this House are grateful also to Sir Hector Monro for the part that he played when the Bill was being discussed in another place. He was fairly tough with the Government in getting them to accept some of the amendments that they were not willing to accept here. I should also like to express appreciation of the painstaking way in which Mr. John Farr achieved nearly all of his very valuable proposals at Committee stage in the other place. Therefore I would ask your Lordships to accept this one expression of gratitude, even though, as I say, it stretches over most of the present amendments.
I see that the size of the Bill has grown by four pages and the price by 65p since we started. I suppose that that is some tribute to our labours. If it is due to some of the additions that I have consistently moved, then I make no apology. I think that it is a very cheap Bill at the price.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment is an example of the kind of thing that we tried to persuade the Government to accept in earlier stages here. Your Lordships may recollect that the offence of removing an illegally taken carcase was one of a number of additional provisions that I put forward to strengthen the Bill's powers against poaching. While the Bill takes great strides—yes, great strides—towards that end, as I made clear on an earlier occasion, I am still not convinced that it is yet a sufficiently forceful weapon with which to challenge the poaching menace really effectively.
In his early remarks the noble Lord said something about the epidemic of poaching. When I made similar remarks they were challenged from some parts of the Chamber, I think even from my own Front Bench. I am glad that the noble Lord supports me in saying that this really is a dreadful menace to the countryside in Scotland. I still believe that the poaching provisions could be reinforced, and despite the assurances by the Minister, I also think that the powers available to the police to foil deer poachers and to bring them to book are inadequate. However, being grateful for small mercies, I fully support the amendment.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
(" Deer farming.
. After subsection (5) of section 21 of the said Act of 1959 there shall be inserted the following new sub-section—
" (5A) This section does not apply to the killing of deer by any person who keeps those deer by way of business on land enclosed by a deer-proof barrier for the production of meat or foodstuffs, or skins or other by-products, or as breeding stock (or to such killing of deer by the servant or agent of any such person authorised by him for that purpose); provided that the deer are conspicuously marked to demonstrate that they are so kept.".").
7.14 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. This is a subject with which the Government have been mainly concerned, and therefore I think it would be appropriate if my noble friend were to speak first on it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I would apologise for the inadvertent absence of my noble friend who was to have taken this matter, but as your Lordships might appreciate, communications with Scotland are a trifle fraught this evening, and my noble friend the Minister has had to leave me, as a great deer lover, to try to explain (I hope adequately) the Government's position on this point. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy suggested that it might be appropriate that the Government state their view.
At an earlier stage my noble friend Lord Burton moved an amendment somewhat similar to this, and he was persuaded to withdraw it on the grounds that it was not the right time, nor indeed was this Bill the right place, for us or Parliament to be legislating on deer farming. Therefore I owe your Lordships an explanation, which I hope will be brief. When we discussed the subject in Committee, my noble friend the Minister pointed out that the Government would prefer to await the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council before being committed to any legislation on deer farming. He also said that it was a subject better suited to treatment on a Great Britain basis. There are deer farms in England, too; indeed we understand that there are more in England than there are in Scotland. But these factors are still relevant. The Farm Animal Welfare Council informed my noble friend the Minister that it intends to consider the entire problem of deer farming, transport and slaughter, and has now started work on this major study. When in due course the council report its conclusions, the Government will have to study them carefully and consider what legislative action, if any, is required in our opinion.
However, the situation has changed since we debated deer farming during the Committee stage of the Bill. Your Lordships will recall that there were later made amendments which severely restrict the circumstances in which deer may be killed in the close season on agricultural land. Under the 1959 Act an occupier may kill deer found on his enclosed land at any time, and Scottish deer farmers rely on this provision to slaughter their farmed stock, in particular stags, at a time of their choosing. However, in the form in which it eventually left your Lordships' House the Bill restricts the right to kill deer to places where they are causing, or threatening to cause, serious damage. Thus it effectively takes away any right which deer farmers may have to slaughter in the close season.
That is a very serious check on deer farmers' business in Scotland, where the close season for stags is nearly nine months long. I am sure that it was not the intention of your Lordships' House to place the deer farmers in that difficulty, which could even drive some very

857
reputable people entirely out of business. Thus, when this amendment was proposed in the other place, the Government did not resist it, even though, as I have explained, we must reserve our position on the whole question of deer farming until the Farm Animal Welfare Council has reported.
There has been some criticism of the drafting of the amendment. We have been told, for instance, that there should be some definition of the term "deer-proof barrier", though I have not heard it explained how the clause as drafted could open the the way to abuse. Indeed, we are not convinced that there is any serious risk of abuse. At any rate, in this respect the provision is considerably more tightly drawn than the existing Act. In any case, as I have said, the Government are likely to be looking again at deer farming in the nottoo-distant future. We shall then be able to consider whether this provision has in fact proved defective. In the meantime, I am in no doubt that something on these lines is now required.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, it was a pity that this amendment was suddenly squeezed in at the last moment in another place. With a little more time, and some discussion in your Lordships' House, it could have been improved. The addition of even one word, the word "agricultural", to qualify the word "land" would have made the amendment a little less open-ended. As it stands, "land can be any land, provided the other conditions are adhered to; it could be a back yard, for example. Nobody wants to exempt that kind of phoney activity under the heading of deer farming.
It is difficult to understand why the drafting was hatched in such loose terms, and it is even more difficult to understand why the Government so readily submitted to this permissive drafting. However, rather than risk the Bill falling foul of another place, were it to be amended and sent back, I shall do no more than register this objection. I do this with some reluctance. I understand that it is important to get the Bill through tonight. However, this is precisely the kind of point which could have benefited from a little more discussion had it not been rushed through in the form of an amendment in another place.
The other point I would make briefly is that it has been said that when the Government asked the opinion of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on this amendment the council strongly advised against it. If that is so, why did the Government dismiss the advice? That is a rather different story from the one which the noble Lord gave from the Front Bench, and if he could enlighten me on it I would be very grateful.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend, when he is answering these points, could tell me what it means when it says,
" provided that the deer are conspicuously marked to demonstrate that they are so kept ".
Is that on carcasses or on live animals? Further, deer-proof fencing is never deer-proof for long. What happens if they get out on to other people's land? How is one to deal with that? I think this is a perfectly ridiculous addition, but if we are to accept it then I think it is quite useful to know what it is intended to mean.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think we would all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that something like this was necessary in this Bill because, of course, there is a tremendous amount of deer farming; but trying to define what is enclosed land with deer inside it is very difficult indeed, as the noble Lord who has just spoken knows only too well. The other point which I, too, was going to raise and which the noble Lord has already raised is this question of being "conspicuously marked". Most deer on small deer farms, of course, are ear-tagged, but that is anything but conspicuous. Although, as my noble friend behind me says, it is necessary to accept this amendment, some thought should be given in the future to doing something a little more concise and meaningful than this particular provision, although, as Iv said, we do not want to hold up the Bill because of it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, at this stage I would simply add a few words. My noble friend on the Front Bench may be able to reply after that, if he is ready to do so, to the points that have been raised by the two noble Lords. I would only say that it is my information that the Farm Animal Welfare Council are looking at this in the light of a general review of the situation, and my understanding is that when they have finished that review the Government will be ready to produce further legislation if it seems necessary.
In the meantime, I think the point which makes something of this kind necessary and desirable in the Bill, even though the drafting may not be as desirable as we would all hope, is the disadvantage which deer farmers in Scotland would suffer vis-à-vis deer farmers south of the Border. The close season for killing deer is very much longer in Scotland, and therefore, for long periods, deer farmers would be unable to kill their own deer at a time when deer farmers in England and Wales would be able to kill theirs. I understand that the close seasons are such that the deer farmers in Scotland would not be able to kill the deer at a time when they particularly wanted to, ready for Christmas and the New Year. That, I understand, is the reason why it was thought that something must be added to the Bill, even though it has been done somewhat hastily.
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that it would be better not to try to make amendments at this stage, because I think we would then be taking a chance that all the work that has been done on this Bill in both Houses might come to nothing because, towards the end of a Session, it is difficult to get more time in the Commons for a Private Member's Bill
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships perhaps I might try briefly to reply to the two points which were raised, first of all, by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. He thought, first, that it might be more suitable to define "land" by use of the word "agricultural", and he suggested this. I am advised that we would have difficulties in using "agricultural" for this particular purpose; and, of course, this would be in terms of the use to which the land is put. We think there would be considerable difficulty in inserting (the example which the noble Lord gave) "agricultural" in the places he suggested it might go in, since we wonder

859
whether it would draw the definition of the amendment too tightly. But I hope the noble Lord will accept that we think that this particular amendment will achieve what we hope it will achieve.
I think his analogy of people keeping deer in the backyard is a trifle fanciful. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I speak from personal experience, not of keeping deer but of keeping livestock in conditions to which they are not entirely used. Cattle may be one aspect; but certainly if you are keeping deer in an urban backyard 1 think that even the noble Lord would admit that those deer are not going to reach the venison market in the condition in which the deer farmer would wish them. So I think he is going just a little far and is pulling my leg slightly over that. But I take his point.
So far as his second point is concerned, about further consultations with the Farm Animal Welfare Council, I hope that we can stick to the line that I took on the consultations in respect to the entire question of deer farming, on both sides of the Border. I hope we can stick to that particular aspect so far as the Farm Animal Welfare Council is concerned.
My noble friend Lord Glenkinglas asked about the deer being "conspicuously marked". Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked about that, too. I understand that these would be marked either by a tag or a collar. I understand it is the practice in deer farming that each individual animal is identifiable and easily marked, and I understand that the definition of "conspicuously marked" would include either the ear tag or the collar.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
(" Control of vehicles
.—(1) After subsection (2) of section 23 of the said Act of 1959 there shall be inserted the following new subsections—
"(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) below and section 33(1) of this Act, if any person—

(a) discharges any firearm, or discharges or projects any missile, from any aircraft at any deer; or

(b) notwithstanding the provisions of section 23(5) of this Act uses any aircraft for the purpose of transporting any live deer other than in the interior of the aircraft,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2B) Nothing in subsection (2A)(b) above shall make unlawful anything done by, or under the supervision of, a veterinary surgeon or practitioner.
(2C) In subsection (2B) above "veterinary practitioner" means a person who is for the time being registered in the supplementary register, and "veterinary surgeon" means a person who is for the time being registered in the register of veterinary surgeons."
(2) In subsection (3) of section 23 of the said Act of 1959 for the words "subsections (1) or (2)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (1), (2) or (2A)".").
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. Subsection (2A)(a) makes it an offence to shoot at deer from an aircraft. Subsection (2A)(b), read with subsections (2B) and (2C), makes it an offence to transport deer underslung from a helicopter except under veterinary supervision. There was some debate on a similar amendment at Report stage, when
860
it was suggested that these were matters which could be dealt with appropriately in subordinate legislation. I am advised, however, that shooting from aircraft could indeed be dealt with in a firearms order.
Underslinging is not so straightforward. It would probably have to be dealt with in a movement of animals order made under different legislation. In any case, the Commons seems to have felt that these matters should be dealt with in one Bill; namely, this Bill. This is a matter dealing with the prevention of cruelty rather than poaching, and from the previous debate I think your Lordships are likely to agree with this amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
(" Use of vehicles to drive deer
. After section 23(2) of the said Act of 1959 there shall be inserted the following new subsection—
" (3A) Any person who uses a vehicle to drive deer on unenclosed land with the intention of taking, killing or injuring them shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.".").
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This amendment requests, in substance, what we have already considered at an earlier stage. It is directed at the poacher who may use a vehicle to round up deer; it does not prevent anyone from using a vehicle to chase deer off his land. Nor does it inhibit what a deer farmer may do with his own stock.
When this subject was previously before this House it was said that the matter could be dealt with under a firearms order. There was some doubt about this, and it was looked at again. This amendment caters for a situation where firearms are not being used, and, accordingly, I suggest it is appropriate that it should be inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5Clause 7, page 4, line 33, at end insert—
(" (5) If any person uses any firearm or any ammunition for the purpose of wilfully injuring any deer, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 for each deer in respect of which the offence was committed or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.").
7.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. This amendment is related to Amendment No. 1 which makes it an offence wilfully to injure deer in any of the cases where it would be an offence wilfully to kill them; that is to say under Sections 21 to 23 of the parent Act, the 1959 Act. The same principle should apply under Clause 7 of the

861
Bill under which the firearms order is to be made. This amendment will achieve that end.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(Lord Campbell of Croy).
Lord Northfield: My Lords, at an earlier stage of the Bill, having with the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, raised the whole question of intentional injuries, I am delighted with this amendment; but, at the risk of breaking the harmony this evening, I must record my censure of the Government's insistence (which is still in the clause we are adding to here) on the use of shotguns at night. Under the Bill, unless authorised by the Red Deer Commission, occupiers may shoot only at red and sica at night.
As the number of sica in Scotland is small this, in practice, means that the only deer that occupiers in Scotland may shoot, or shoot at, at night, are red deer, animals standing 4 feet at the shoulder. This does us no good. I would guess that if the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, is uncertain about any one part of the Bill, this must be the one which gives him the greatest concern. It should never have been left in this particular clause. I am well aware of what my Scottish friends feel about the Government's opinions in this matter.
May I say on this particular question of firearms, which is part of this amendment, that we shall soon be reaching the order which, after consultation, will be tabled under this clause, the order concerning the type of firearms. I want to give notice now so that there is no doubt when we reach this matter (and I think that others in this House and in another place will agree) that we shall have no hesitation is opposing the order if it is not acceptable and in pressing for better provision, even if it meant that the order would have to be delayed. We cannot have that story again. We have had it all through the Bill. When it comes to the order, we will not accept that argument. We really must fight this out as to whether the firearms order is adequate. I stress this in order to forestall possible accusations of holding up the vitally important control of weapons which can he used for killing deer.
My caveat also applies to any other order under this Bill; for example, the order specifying the records to be kept by licenced venison dealers. I say that now to avoid speaking when we come to that matter later. The Bill makes great improvements in the present position. The welfare of deer will be enhanced; the cruelty inflicted by inappropriate weapons, so long the source of grave disquiet, should be reduced. The callousness of deer poachers will be hit and the management of deer in Scotland will be improved. But we are left at this last stage with the whole question of weapons, and still saying that the Bill should have gone some distance further, that there should have been a total prohibition on shooting at night and there should have been some stronger provisions about weapons. I have a feeling that we shall all be here again before the decade it out, and I am sorry about this because we could have tackled matters more thoroughly in the present Bill. Nevertheless, as this amendment deals with an issue that I raised, I am glad to have it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thought that this amendment would be welcome to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has fired his own warning shot about orders to come and the future with something of a good deal higher calibre than a shotgun.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6Clause 8, page 5, line 10, at end insert ("; and in that regard he may apply any provision of Schedule 1 to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, as he thinks fit.").
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. Your Lordships will recall that this House agreed that the procedure for licensing venison dealers should be modelled as closely as possible upon the general licensing provisions to be enacted in the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill. That Bill is still before Parliament and one of its aims is to standardise as far as possible licensing systems in Scotland covering all subjects. It was not at that time appropriate to insert a specific reference in that Bill since the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill was still at an early stage. Now, considerable progress has been made to the Bill and this amendment inserts the reference required. If, by some unforeseen chance, the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill were to fail to reach the statute book, the words of this amendment would simply be ineffective and would not damage this Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I have one question to ask, and if the Minister cannot answer it tonight perhaps he will be good enough to write to me. We are dealing with the question of licensing venison dealers and I think it important to have on the record somewhere, or in some publicity given to it, that the Minister should be asked for an assurance that the names of licensed dealers will be available to bona fide inquirers. This is an important matter. Some con— siderable check will be needed on whether the powers that can be used under this amendment are watched so that the right sort of people get the licences. I hope that we will at some point get a clear undertaking that there will be some form of register which will be open to public inspection showing the names of people who have got the licences.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I understand that this is a matter which is more complicated than I can go into in 30 seconds this evening. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that I accept his invitation to write to him.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, at this stage I do not know the answer to the point Lord Northcliffe has raised. It might be still a matter for decision and for the eventual enactment of the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill. He has made his point, which is an important one. I, too, should be interested to know what is going to happen and what is intended.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
7Clause 10, page 9, line 1, leave out (" (d) or (e)").
8 Clause 10, page 9, line 5, leave out ("(d)") and insert
(" (b) or (d) of that subsection ").
9 Clause 10, page 9, line 6, after (" the ") insert (" owner's or, as the csse may be,").
10 Clause 10, page 9, ine 8, after (" (e)" ) insert (" of that subsection ").
7.38 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10. Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the House that these amendments be moved en bloc. These are technical and make the appropriate changes to subsection (3)(a) in Clause 10 as a consequence of the introduction of paragraphs (a) and (b) in subsection (3). Your Lordships will recall that it was in this House that those subsections were introduced by amendment. These consequential amendments are therefore necessary.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I have only a brief point to raise. If the Minister cannot give an answer tonight, perhaps he will write to me because the issue is an important one. Can we have it clear that when these clauses are put into effect the names of the people who are approved by the Red Deer Commission for shooting in the close season will be available for bona fide purposes?—in other words, that we must again have access to the names of people who are given this rather special exemption for shooting in the close season.
Looking ahead to Amendment No. 11, so that I need not rise on that, will the noble Lord kindly see that some news reaches us as to whether the people who are approved persons for shooting at night are put on a list which can be inspected for bona fide purposes? We cannot be too careful in this area. This is an open situation, and we must make sure that a list of names can be properly inspected and checked. If it is impossible to give the answer tonight, I quite understand that it might be given on another occasion.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with leave, I shall write to the noble Lord on that.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Page 9, line 39, leave out (" each ") and insert (" the ").
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. This is purely drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
12 Clause 11, page 10, line 23, after (" 11.") insert ("—(1)").
13 Clause 11, page 10, line 31, at end insert—
(" (2) Section 23(4) of the said Act of 1959 is repealed.
(3) In section 27 of the said Act of 1959, in subsections (2) and (4) for the words "section twenty-four" there shall be substituted the words "Part III or section 25D(1) or (3)".").
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. As proposed at the beginning of our proceedings, it would be convenient if Amendment No. 13 were taken with Amendment No. 12. These amendments arise from the Report stage debate in your Lordships' House when my noble friend Lord Mansfield undertook to look into police powers of search and seizure. It would probably therefore be best if my noble friend on the Front Bench were to speak first on these amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Campbell and also to the House, since I find myself speaking at rather short notice, and my instructions were that the Government view needed to be stated. However, my natural deference led me to permit my noble friend to take the lead and I understand it is one of the occasions when I should have done so. This Amendment No. 12 paves for Amendment No. 13. Your Lordships will see that the new subsection (2) is rather technical. It removes a reference to previous convictions, which is no longer required now that we are doing away with the separate sets of penalites for first and subsequent convictions.
The new subsection (3) arises out of an undertaking given by my noble friend the Minister to your Lordships at Report stage. We said then that we would review Section 27 of the Act, which deals with police powers of search and seizure, as my noble friend Lord Campbell pointed out. I thought at the time that we might need to bring forward a complete new section to replace Section 27. Certainly, if we had been drafting the Act for the first time today rather than revising an existing Act, we should have come up with something rather different; but on examination we have found that the section is very serviceable as it is. We have to remember that the police do not have to rely only on the powers contained in Section 27. They also have extensive common law powers, which in general they seem to find quite adequate. Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting a serious offence, he has a general power to enter land and even premises; to make an arrest and, having done so, to search the person.
We are not therefore replacing Section 27. However, there is one anomaly in it which is removed by this amendment. The powers of entry and search in subsections (2) and (4) of Section 27 relate only to offences under Section 24, the so-called "gang" offences. We have come to the view, after consultation with my honourable friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland, that the same power should extend to

865
all offences under Part III of the Act and indeed to those offences under the new Part IIIA, where police powers are not specifically indicated. The amendment has the effect of doing just that.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I have very little to say on this matter, but it leaves me to make one general point since we are nearing the end of the discussion. If one looks at the complexity of this amendment—and both noble Lords have referred to that—one realises what a difficult situation we are going to be in when this legislation is through. I made the case right from the very beginning that it would have been much better to redraft the whole legislation so that we could see it in front of us as a body of new law. Instead, the procedure followed has been to amend to the point of such complexity that it will be a long time after the Bill is through before everybody knows exactly where they are with all these technical amendments.
In fact it seems absurd that after this Bill is through —and I put this on the record—we shall have to cope with no less than three Acts and at least four orders dealing with deer in Scotland. I suspect that it will be a courageous person who does out stalking in Scotland without a lawyer to accompany him to make sure that everybody knows what is and what is not permitted. I am sure there are going to be volunteers, and I can see the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, perhaps foreseeing a profitable furrow to plough, if I may mix my metaphors—but that leads me to make the serious point that somebody ought to take in hand eventually, when this Bill is through, the issue of some consolidated form of legislation so that we can see at a glance what all this complexity really boils down to. If it cannot be done by way of a complete consolidation Act, then some leaflet, pamphlet or something emanating from the Scottish Office should be prepared so as to give the interested people in Scotland a clear guide through all this muddle and technical confusion.
Of course, at the end of all that, I welcome the amendment but, my goodness! if one looks at Amendment No. 13, it reads:
" (3) in section 27 of the said Act of 1959, in subsections (2) and (4) for the words section twenty-four ' there shall be substituted the words Part III or section 25D(I) or (3) '.".
Is anybody, other than a highly trained lawyer, going easily to understand what all that can possibly mean? Would it not have been much better if we had accepted the idea of totally redrafting the legislation in the first place instead of having all this terrible complexity?

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Schedule 1, page 12, line 18, column 1, after (" killing ") insert (" or injuring ").
15 Schedule 1, page 12, line 32, column 1, leave out (" or killing ") and insert (", killing or injuring ").
16 Schedule 1, page 12, page 13, line 3, column 1, leave out (" or killing of deer ") and insert (", killing or injuring of deer, or breach of firearms order,").
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, again it was agreed that Amendments 14 to 16 might be taken en bloc. I, therefore, beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16. These amendments are purely consequential as a result of earlier amendments which created the
866
offences of injuring deer. This is a matter of drafting, and I take this opportunity of sympathising with what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said on the wording of the last amendments and the complications of amending legislation in the way that we have been proceeding. But once having started I do not think we could alter the principle now. If my noble friend on the Front Bench were able to give us some information in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, about the possibility of consolidation of the legislation on deer in Scotland at some early date, or an equivalent, and if he were able to say anything by the time we have reached Amendment No. 19, the last amendment, I am sure the House would be grateful.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
17 Schedule 2, page 14, line 4, leave out (" 25 ") and insert (" 28 ").
18 Schedule 2, page 14, line 6, leave out (" 25A ") and insert (" 28A ").
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. These are drafting amendments. The Bill inserts two new sections into the Act and the numbering needs to be rectified. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Schedule 3, page 15, line 14, column 3, at end insert (" Section 23(4).").
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. This is a consequential amendment as a result of Amendment No. 13 which we recently approved. This is the last amendment, and before sitting down I should again like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Glenarthur on the success of this Private Peer's Bill, having gone through both Houses and returned here with these amendments.
My only qualification for having taken on this task at the final stage was that I piloted through and Sponsored two Scottisn Deer Bills in the Commons in the 1960s; in particular, the Sale of Venison (Scotland) Act 1968 which was a precursor of this Bill. As I said in the Second Reading debate, I am glad that the Sale of Venison (Scotland) Act 1968, which could go only a certain way, is now being extended and the measures in it taken much further.
I would remind your Lordships that, in those days, there was quite a lot of opposition to what appeared to be a conspiracy of landowners trying to prevent people from bagging deer, and there was a limit to how far one could go in a private Member's Bill, which could get through only with general agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has said this evening, the horrors which are now perpetrated by poachers

867
have made most people, certainly in Scotland, realise that much more now needs to be done.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur would wish to join me in thanking all noble Lords who have contributed during the stages of this Bill, and especially my noble friend Lord Mansfield. I should like to mention, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, because he has made his experience and knowledge and great interest available to help us improve the legislation in Scotland. He is here again tonight and has made further contributions, and I am sure that the House is grateful to him. My Lords I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it might be convenient if I tried to put at rest the minds of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and other noble Lords who are confused by the plethora of amendments to differing orders and Acts that are concerned with this knotty problem of deer farming and deer management, in general. I am given to understand that this interesting document which is called Statutes in Force will have a new edition within six months, which will incorporate all the legislation which has been passed up till now, including the Bill which is before your Lordships this evening. I understand that it will appear in a suitably conventional form. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield seems to think that it will be very difficult for deer stalkers or deer farmers not to have one document at hand to show them on which side of the law they are carrying out their operations, and I hope that his fears will be put totally at rest when a new reprint of the Statutes in Force is produced within the next six months.
But if the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, believes that Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which I was attempting to explain to your Lordships, are difficult, I invite him to sit in on many of the other Scottish Bills which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and other noble Lords study in the long watches of the evening. He would then see that reading subsection (3) of Amendment No. 13 is relatively simple. It seemed fairly clear to me and I am not a lawyer; I just have to wrestle with these problems, both on the Back-Benches and in your Lordships' House. But I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and I understand the fears that have been expressed by other Members of your Lordships' House, and I hope that Statutes in Force may explain matters.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as I moved the Motion, I think that I am entitled to speak again, so I do not need to ask for the leave of the House. Before my noble friend sits down, I want to ask him one question. I am delighted to hear about the publication which is coming out during the next six months, but I am very doubtful whether it will set out the text of the original 1959 Act in the form in which it is now being amended. That is what will be difficult, because it will still all be by reference. So I hope that this subject will receive attention from the Government. My noble friend mentioned me as somebody who has had to pore over difficult Scottish statutes, but may I
868
remind him that when I was in a position to do so, as Secretary of State and earlier as a junior Minister, I was always the champion of consolidation and was always trying to get Scottish housing Acts and other Acts into a form which was more intelligible, not only to the legal fraternity, for whom I have the greatest respect, but also to laymen.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if I may have the leave of your Lordships to correct one point in my peroration on this amendment, I said "within six months", but I am told that it will be about six months. I hear encouraging noises from my noble friend Lord Colville who knows about these matters and has great expertise, both as a lawyer and as a Minister in his past incarnation. I am also reliably informed that the revised document will contain the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959, as amended by the Bill that we have been discussing this evening. So I think that that is an added bonus to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and to your Lordships' House.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, this seems a happy note on which to conclude the passage of this Bill, because I believe that after we have finished this evening it automatically goes for Royal Assent. I should not like this moment to pass without making one or two points. First, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was being unduly modest. He said that his only qualification for taking on the Bill at this point was his connection with past legislation. That was such a distinguished past that he does not need to be modest about it on this occasion. Those earlier Acts were of great importance, and what the Bill that we are discussing is doing is simply bringing them up to date in the light of further experience and, dare I say it, in the light of experience across the Border. One of the difficulties about this whole matter has been —
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is straying beyond the paths of order at this stage. I think that it would assist the House if he could draw his remarks to a conclusion sooner rather than later.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am absolutely astonished. I have not spoken at all on this amendment.
Lord Lyell: I am sorry, my Lords. I thought that the noble Lord had spoken once on this amendment. I am sorry if I led my noble friend into the paths of misadventure, but I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, had spoken on this amendment. I was thinking that we are not discussing the Question, That the Bill do now pass. But, if I am in error, I am sorry.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lords are in error, and I am sorry that the Deputy Chief Whip comes in without having been here earlier, and starts saying something without knowing what has been happening. I had not said anything on this amendment. I am using this occasion simply to say that I should not like the modesty of the noble Lord to go on the record, without paying tribute

869
to him as a forerunner of this legislation, which we are now finally bringing up-to-date at this stage.
I am sorry that the passage of the Bill ends on a rather sour note, after I had tried to end it rather amicably. I have spoken extremely briefly throughout and I had not spoken on this amendment. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will offer me an apology. The Bill now goes for Royal Assent. I am absolutely delighted to hear that the legislation will be brought fully into a form in which everybody can see it; namely, in the publication to which the noble Lord has referred.
I end by saying that we have completed a mammoth piece of work. Thanks to the activities of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and the help of the Government the Bill is in substantial shape. I venture to say that without the help of a few people outside—I would mention in particular Mr. Hodgkiss, one of the main advisers of those of us dealing with the Bill—many of the weaknesses would not have been found and remedied. It is good that we can end with a Bill which is virtually agreed and which will make a considerable contribution to the safety and welfare of deer in Scotland. It will bring the law up to date in Scotland as it has been brought up to date in England. It is a good day for deer that we in this House tonight have completed the work.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave, for the second time, of the House, if I was out of order may I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I think that even he will admit that in my mind there was a certain amount of confusion as to which amendment we were dealing with. The noble Lord shakes his head. Nevertheless, I hope that he will accept my apology.

Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill
8.2 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Colville f Culross.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD WELLS-PESTELL in the Chair.]
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exclusion of exhibitions promoted for private gain from certain exemptions under the 1900 and 1952 Acts]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 1?
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
(" (IA) An exhibition is promoted for private gain if, and only if,—

(a) any proceeds of the exhibition, that is to say, any sums paid for admission to the exhibition; or

870

(b) any other sums (whenever paid) which, having regard to all the circumstances, can reasonably be regarded as paid wholly or partly for admission to the exhibition,

are applied wholly or partly for purposes of private gain.").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 form a single group. The Committee may well remember that there were three points in this Bill. We were bringing the modern electronic system, which includes video tapes and such-like, within the longstanding control of the cinematograph licensing system. We were proposing to consolidate the legislation, which would have pleased the soul of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, if he had happened to stay a little longer. That is what most of the list of amendments is about. Thirdly—perhaps this was the centre of the Bill—there was the problem of clubs, to which the public as such were allegedly not admitted but which in practice were open to all, in which cinematograph exhibitions were available, subject to neither safety nor fire or censorship licensing control.
This set of amendments deals with the question which I have just mentioned. What has happened is that in an attempt to curtail, or at any rate to bring under licensing control, the activities of clubs, both on safety and on the content of the material which is shown, there has been introduced the concept of private gain. That is in Clause 2 of the Bill. A number of people have examined what this involves. It is at this point that I should declare an interest. I am the director of a substantial group of companies, one of which has a large number of high street shops where hire televisions, video cassette players and the cassettes which go into them are sold. I think it is agreed all round that we do not wish to subject to licensing control a perfectly ordinary high street television shop which chooses to demonstrate to its would-be customers the perfectly harmless video tapes that it has for sale or hire. The intention of this group of amendments is to make sure that this does not occur.
This means that one has to look at the definition of the words "for private gain". The argument has always been that, if you said that you should not without a licence exhibit cinematograph material for private gain, you could argue that this included a shop which was attempting to persuade its customers to buy or hire a video tape or film. It has never been entirely clear, either to myself or to my honourable friend in another place whose Bill this is, that this would occur, but the problem is that there are over 300 licensing authorities around the country, any one of which might take it into its head to say that such a shop should be licensed. That would mean litigation. Litigation is expensive. And litigation, or the threat of it, causes uncertainty. This set of amendments therefore attempts to remove that uncertainty by putting it into the Bill, in a perfectly clear way, that this sort of exhibition of a cinematograph or a video film is not going to need a licence.
It is at this point that I should very much welcome the advice and assistance of the Committee. I am not committed to this form of words, though they do the job which I have just explained. The difficulty about them is that those who have considered the question of what is covered by the words" for private gain "have also come to the conclusion that those words would cover the exhibition of a full length feature

871
film in the saloon bar of a public house, or in a number of other places, every Thursday. They have taken the view—I do not think that this is a commercial view; it is based upon proper requirements for public safety—that they would not like those sorts of exhibitions also to be exempted altogether—at any rate, not without looking at the alternative systems whereby these matters can be controlled.
The fact of the matter is that if these amendments are passed we shall exempt the shops and, so far as concerns this particular provision in the Bill, we shall probably also exempt the pub which shows a film once a week, or whatever it might be. We shall probably also exempt hotels which show films in their bedrooms on one of the private bands of their television sets—and, for all I know, many other things. What one has to try to do is to balance a number of things.
First, as I think I said at Second Reading, if it is to have any hope of succeeding a Private Member's Bill needs to be comparatively modest in what it contains. Consequently, I do not think that this is a measure in which we ought to set out to cure all known or all foreseen, or foreseeable, possibilities of infringements of one sort or another. Therefore my instinct is to try to keep the matter as simple as possible, even if there are things which may not be covered. When I say that there are things which may not he covered, where I would like the advice of the Committee, as it considers this matter, is this. We are not only involved with cinematograph legislation when it comes to two aspects that I have been talking about.
On the question of safety, particularly in relation to fire, there are two measures which will be available in any event. First, if we are talking about a public house, there are the licensing justices. I remember my old aunt —alas no longer with us—who was for a very long time a justice of the peace in Devonshire, and she swore that she had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the lavatories at every public house within her petty sessional division, because she used to go round licensing them—and the public house as well—year after year. There is a duty upon licensing justices to look into certain matters which go to public safety. If they knew that a public house was to be used for the exhibition of films or videos, this could well be something they would take into account.
Secondly, a public house is covered by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act and this also gives an opportunity to the fire authority to lay down requirements for public safety. Again, this relates not only to the people who work there but has to take into account people who resort to the premises in order to watch the film or whatever it is as well as to enjoy their pint. So, on safety. we are not bound to the cinematograph legislation because there are at least two other pieces of legislation which give the responsible authorities the opportunity to deal with fire precautions and the necessary requirements which go with them.
On censorship, again the cinematograph legislation of which this will become part is not the only thing available. First, if, for instance, we are talking about a public house the Indecent Displays (Control) Act
872
which was passed last year would undoubtedly apply and therefore it would be an offence to display a cinematograph exhibition which fell within its terms. Secondly, if it got to the stage where the cinema films or videos were of a particularly "blue" nature, the case would fall within the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which is just about to finish its parliamentary course. That would need a licence by the same licensing authority—except in London—handling the matter under the cinematograph legislation. They are able to say either, "Yes, you can have a sex cinema subject to this or that", or if they choose, "You cannot have any sex cinemas at all in our district", because that is a part of the powers they possess. Thirdly, there is the general protection provided under the obscenity law in the 1959 Act.
What I therefore wish to seek advice upon is this. Shall this House, looking at a problem which is known to exist whereby we could completely clog up the district councils if there was any question of them having to license all the high street shops having point-of-sale displays, try to put in something that will exempt them, even if it means that we have to rely on other legislation in order to deal with the slightly more recondite but, nevertheless important exhibitions of a different sort?
Or are your Lordships going to ask me to look at this again? I am very prepared to do so. The drafting is extremely difficult, but that does not mean to say that I am not prepared to take another look at it if there is serious concern. I commend these amendments for the sake of the clarity they bring and for the avoidance of any necessity for trial cases or different decisions being taken in different districts around the British Isles. But if noble Lords think there is a serious area not covered by the other legislation to which I have referred, then I shall be very happy to look at this. With that invitation, and seeking a response from those who take an interest in this subject, I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Viscount has spoken with his usual charm and clarity. I who have neither of these virtues will at least speak briefly to his amendment. When we were considering the situation at the previous stage of this Bill, we realised that there was a gap that ought to be filled because we were possibly including in our net those we might not wish to include and possibly excluding those we might not wish to exclude. As happens in these matters, and nobody is to blame, this amendment has come forward at a very late stage. One of the important things in regard to a Private Members Bill of this kind is that one should carry the relevant trade with one, especially if it is a reputable trade and one is dealing with reputable associations. The Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association wanted to help with the purpose of this Bill and to see that it is enacted. So has another organisation called the Association of Independent Cinemas. They have had a very short time within which to consider this amendment and their view—I emphasise that it is an off-the-cuff view—is that one is letting in by this definition premises that one would not wish to let in.
I do not think it is entirely satisfactory—I am sure the noble Viscount himself would agree with this—having to refer to other powers and statutes in order

873
to cover the purpose of a main Bill. If one cannot avoid doing that, it becomes a little clumsy. To have to rely on the licensing powers for public houses for safety, and yet on another Bill for other matters, relating possibly to the type of film which the public house might show, is not a very satisfactory way. The noble Viscount was very frank with the Committee in saying that that is what might have to be done if—and I use his words—the Bill had not excluded public houses and hotels.
My humble advice to the Committee would be that we do take advantage of the noble Viscount's very generous offer to go back and see whether it is possible to do what this Bill aims to do—namely, to close unseemly gaps, for that is the whole purpose of the Bill, and to complete the closure of those gaps in the proper way. Your Lordships will expect it of me if just before I sit down, instead of being just destructive, I was to some slight degree constructive. The noble Viscount generously invited suggestions from Members of the Committee to guide him. This is not original guidance but it is guidance I have been afforded by the Cinematograph Association, whom I know have written to the Minister, who will speak for himself as he is most competent to do.
The association have suggested, rightly or wrongly but it does merit consideration, that one should set out in this Bill quite frankly those whom one wishes to exclude. They have prepared an amendment which they say is very hurried and the exclusion would be to exhibitions which are given solely for any of the following purposes—and the association cites four: (1) for promoting the sale of equipment for the display Of moving pictures, (2) for promoting the sale of goods or services in premises used for the purpose of selling such goods or services, (3) for commercial or industrial training and (4) for displaying statistics and other data for use in commerce or industry. I have finished my quotation of their four exclusions.
It may be sensible to do it by exclusion. It may be sensible to try to look at the amendment again. I hope in the circumstances that the noble Viscount will think it appropriate, in view of his own very kind way of moving the amendment, not to move it at this Committee stage but to let us have deliberation and consultation with the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and other experts in the trade to see whether at Report stage one can come forward with something a little more definite and a little more comprehensive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): I must say I have never found either my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, deficient in either clarity or charm. I do not attempt to rival either of them in this. I must, I think, endorse what my noble friend has said, that the principal purpose of this Bill, as the Government see it, is to close what the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, called an unseemly gap. That gap was of course the commercial cinema clubs, which ought to be brought fully within the cinematograph licensing system.
We have not seen the Bill's objective as being to apply to all exhibitions in any commercial setting including those which arc not given for payment. I do, none the less, appreciate the concern of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association on the question of the
874
operation of the Bill and this amendment; they did indeed write to me to bring that concern to my attention. It focussed on the fact that the amendment defines an exemption for private gain strictly in terms of sums paid, directly or indirectly, for admission, and they felt that thereby a significant area of operation which they had supposed would be caught by the Bill in fact would not be caught by the Bill.
As I said, the Bill is not intended as an intervention in commercial balances between one part of the market, as it were, arid another. It is specifically to control the activities of clubs. However, I take very well the point made that the time-scale has been somewhat curtailed, that it is always desirable to proceed wherever possible in legislation by agreement, that the agreement should be as wide as possible and that reasonable efforts should be made to secure it.
I have noted the alternative which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has put forward, and which was put before me in the letter to which I referred. My first reaction to it would, of course, be that of any prudent legislator, that when you include in the scope of an Act of Parliament specific things that are not to be caught by it the assumption is that anything not listed is to be caught, and the great danger then is that there is legislation, as if were, by omission. I think we would want to look at the list of categories with some care in any case, to see whether each category ought to be excluded and whether other categories perhaps ought to be excluded as well. So I would not like to give a commitment as to what the reaction should be. But if my noble friend sees fit to delay putting this amendment into the Bill, I for my part will welcome it as an opportunity to clarify my own mind and that of the trade on this issue.
I do not think I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, into the virtues or otherwise of legislation by reference, except to say that of course in this case it would not be necessary to have recourse to legislation in order to see that licensed premises which were licensed for purposes other than cinematograph exhibitions were properly conducted, because those regulations already exist and they already apply to those buildings by reason of the licensing requirements. I fear I have tempted the noble Lord to join issue with me.
Lord Mishcon: It is a temptation that I am going very shortly to overcome. Obviously one does not want to go into a long argument about this, but on the question, for example, of safety in public houses and hotels, the regulations take into consideration, so far as I know, the normal user, which is, for example, in light. There are other considerations which have to take place when darkness has to be brought upon the premises by virtue of the fact that a film is being shown, and these considerations are not always taken into account by licensing justices who would not know of the occasional use for film purposes. I do not want to take the discussion any further. I only wanted to clarify my mind in repeating my point, so that at least the noble Lord the Minister would know what I was trying to suggest.
Lord Elton: I do not wish to prolong this either by a list of my recollections of licensed premises in which

875
darkness was induced for a whole variety of purposes of which the magistrates may or may not have been aware. But the point is well taken that these are areas that ought to be discussed. If my noble friend feels disposed to provide the time for discussion, I think we would welcome it.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I think I have had my guidance from the Committee. May I just say two things? First of all, there will, unless something goes tremendously wrong in a minute, be a Report stage, because I have a whole collection of consolidation amendments which I hope the Committee will accept. Secondly, I do trust that those who are concerned with this matter will be prepared to see a solution reached at the next stage of the Bill on this point. We do not wish to send back a Bill to another place with a contentious matter in it if we can possibly avoid it. Therefore, what I should like to do is to take advantage of the extremely generous assistance I have been offered by my noble friend, and by the noble Lord opposite, with those who have advised him, to see if we can come up with a formula. But I anticipate that we must try to get this right by Report stage.
We must also bear in mind, if I may say so, the practical aspect of what the licensing justices, or the people who inspect under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act really do take into account. I should like to look at that myself. I hope that, if we find that there is a practical solution, even if it does mean relying on other legislation which is run by the same local authorities with the same officers concerned, then it may not be a compromise that we cannot accept in the end. Let us look at it again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No 2:
Page 2, line 14, after (" that ") insert (" the proceeds of ").
The noble Viscount said: Will the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman accept that I shall not move Amendments Nos. 2 to 6.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord WellsPestell): With your Lordships' permission, I will second that Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 are not moved.
(Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.)
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 (Powers of entry):
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 11, leave out (" to the licensing authority ").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 7 goes with Amendments Nos. 8, 12, 16, 17 and 18. It is very simple. It is a consolidation provision. The problem is that the present legislation applies to cinematograph exhibitions in what is touchingly called a "movable building or structure", and to them the fire authority is entitled to apply restrictions. The trouble is that,
876
being a movable building or structure, the fire authority does not know that it is coming, because it is not notified, like everybody else, that it is on its way. This puts that right. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 24, leave out (" to the licensing authority ").
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, leave out lines 2 to 5.
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9. Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 13 and 14 go together. What is being done here is to put together the definition of the fire authority, and to put it in a better place. I beg to move.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6, 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 (Interpretation):
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No.10:
Page 7, line 27, at end insert—
(""chief officer of police", in relation to any premises, means the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated; ").
The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert—
(""fire authority in relation to any premises, means the authority discharging in the area in which the premises are situated the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act 1947;").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Amendments and repeals]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 12, leave out (" the following provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect ") and insert (" there shall cease to have effect section 7(2)(b) and (3)(b)(ii) of the 1909 Act and the following provisions of this Act ").
The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 8, line 26, leave out ("the definition of" fire authority "and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 33, leave out (" definition of "exempted exhibition"") and insert ("definitions of" exempted exhibition "and" fire authority"").
The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 9, line 23, leave out from beginning to (" duration ") and insert—
(" 2—(1) In subsection (1) of section 2 of that Act (grant of licences) for the words "the premises" there shall be substituted the words "any premises in their area".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section ").
The noble Viscount said: It is perfectly obvious that a licensing authority ought only to issue a licence for premises in its own area. I cannot think why nobody thought of it before; now we have done so and I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 16
Page 9, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("(exhibitions") and insert—
("3.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 7 of that Act (occasional exhibitions)—

(a) for the words "to the county council and to the chief officer of police of the police area" (as originally enacted) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

" (a) to the local authority in whose area the premises are situated;

(b) to the authority discharging in the area in which the premises are situated the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act 1947; and

(c)to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated; "; and

(b) for the words "by the county council" (as originally enacted) there shall be substituted the words "by that local authority".

(2) In subsection (3) of that section (moveable buildings or structures)—

(a) for the words "the council of the county in which" (as originally enacted) there shall be substituted the words "the local authority in whose area";

(b) in paragraph (a), for the words from "the council of the county" to "this Act" (as originally enacted) there shall be substituted the words "the local authority in whose area he ordinarily resides;

(c) in paragraph (b), for the words "to the council of the county and to the chief officer of police of the police area in which it is proposed to give the exhibition" (as originally enacted) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraphs—

878

" (i) to the local authority in whose area it is proposed to give the exhibition;

(ii) to the authority discharging in the area in which it is proposed to give the exhibition the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act 1947; and

(iii) to the chief officer of police of the police area in which it is proposed to give the exhibition; "; and

(d) in paragraph (c), for the words "the county council" (as originally enacted) there shall be substituted the words "the local authority in whose area it is proposed to give the exhibition".

(3) For subsection (4) of that section ")
The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 9, line 48, at end insert—
(" (6) In this section ' local authority ' means

(a) in England and Wales, the Greater London Council or a district council;

(b) in Scotland, an islands or district council.").

The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross No. 18:
Page 11, line 41, at end insert—

(" 1972 c. 70.

The Local Government Act 1972.

Section 204(5)(b)

1973 c. 65.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

In Schedule 24, in paragraph 33, the words from "in section 7(3)" to islands area or district".").

The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 44, column 3, leave out (" 2 ") and insert (" 3 ").
The noble Viscount said: Somebody has gone and added a new schedule to the Criminal Justice Bill which we shall be discussing tomorrow. Unfortunately, it means that it goes in front of the one to which we have referred at the very last page of this Bill. We should, therefore, in anticipation that the Criminal Justice Bill will eventually become an Act, take steps to get the right schedule referred to. But if, of course, there should be further changes and this Bill is wrong by the time it gets on to the statute book, it can be changed by the Criminal Justice Bill itself. Meanwhile, in order to hold the fort, I beg to move.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

The Lebanon
8.37 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to help restore the integrity of the Lebanon after Israel's aggression.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raise this subject tonight in order to urge the Government to take all possible steps to restore the integrity of the Lebanon after the Israeli invasion. I do not propose to dwell on the human suffering caused by Israel's invasion, but we should perhaps remind ourselves briefly of the facts. According to the International Red Cross and the Lebanese police, up to 14,000 Lebanese and Palestinians have been killed and up to 20,000 wounded. Incidents of a particularly horrifying kind were caused by the dropping of 2,000 lb. bombs and the American cluster bombs in crowded civilian areas. According to the Red Cross, more than 2,200 people were killed in Sidon alone. Noble Lords may have seen the despatch from The Times correspondent, Mr. Robert Fisk, when he described the scene in an elementary school which had been hit. He wrote:
" The bodies lay on top of each other to a depth of perhaps six feet, their arms and legs wrapped round each other, well over 100 of them, congealed in death into a strangely unnatural mass ".
Besides those killed and wounded, United Nations officials estimate that 600,000 people have been made homeless. Although this is hard to believe, it cannot be contested. The sufferings of the wounded and the refugees have been made worse because the Israelis have been deliberately obstructing the sending in of medical and relief supplies. Noble Lords may have seen the letter of protest in The Times last week from Christian Aid, Oxfam and other organisations. Finally, the press were forbidden access to the worst hit towns on the grounds, according to Israeli officials themselves, that the publication of the details would damage Israel's international image. But no amount of covering up by the Israelis can conceal from world opinion their inexcusably brutal and savage conduct.
However, we must ask ourselves why this happened and what should now be done. The Israelis protest that the PLO was shelling and rocketing Northern Galilee, but, as the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Mr. Hurd, explained in another place on 8th June:
" In fact, there were no artillery or rocket attacks by the PLO across the Israel-Lebanon border between the implementation of the cease-fire in July 1981 and 8th May when the Palestinians responded to Israeli air attacks on their positions in the Lebanon."
But the Israelis also protest that the PLO was responsible for the outrageous attack on their ambassador in London. However, their military preparations had evidently been made long before this and they were plainly waiting for a pretext to invade. Moreover, it is now clear that the attack was not made by the PLO, but by the PLO's enemies, by a group of fanatics which for years has been murdering both Israelis and Palestinians who favoured a peaceful settlement. The former PLO representative in London, Mr. Said Hammami, a very brave and distinguished man, told me of the threat to him from this group shortly before they murdered him. Mr. Arafat and the present PLO representative in London are also on this group's hit list. Thus, so far from avenging Mr. Argov, by
880
invading the Lebanon and attacking the PLO the Israelis have, in fact, made common cause with Mr. Argov's assailants.
The Israelis are on stronger ground when they protest that members of the PLO have carried out other acts of violence against Israelis, particularly in Israel itself. But why should Israeli acts of savagery against Palestinians be expected to end this type of Palestinian savagery against Israelis? All experience shows that it is more likely to increase it. As is shown by their history before the coming of Zionism, the Palestinians are not by nature a cruel or violent people—very much the contrary. The truth is that terrorist gangs would emerge in any nation subjected to the degree of injustice, humiliation, deprivation and oppression suffered by the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis.
We British, to our shame, have thrown up a small number of young men ready to commit violence against immigrants. But suppose that we had experienced immigration on the same comparative scale and of the same type as the Palestinians. Suppose we had had imposed on us 30 million or 40 million immigrants, and that these immigrants, instead of becoming British citizens, had seized large parts of Britain, including London, and set up their own state, driving out millions of British people and appropriating without compensation their houses, shops, farms and personal property. I ask: would all British people have taken this peacefully? Would none of our young men have taken up arms and would not some of these have committed outrageous acts of revenge?
Nevertheless, as we have not had the Palestinian experience, we have the right to express our moral indignation against the armed action and sometimes the terrorist acts of members of the PLO. I have done so myself, publicly, on more than one occasion. But the Israelis, and Begin especially, have no such rights. As the Guardian commented last week:
" Both Jews and non-Jews have an increasingly difficult job in arguing for Israel's protection against Arab terrorists when the state of Israel itself sets an example of terrorism on a nationwide scale."
Even if we leave aside this institutionalised, mass terrorism and consider only terrorism in the narrower, classical sense, the Israelis are still in no position to protest. On a smaller scale, more efficiently and with greater secrecy, the Israeli security service, Mossad, also commits individual acts of assassination. Atone time of course, Begin himself was a self-avowed terrorist. Indeed, if we count up his victims in the King David Hotel at Deir Yassin and elsewhere, we are led to a remarkable conclusion. Simple arithmetic shows that judged solely by the number of his victims when he was a self-confessed terrorist, the Israeli Prime Minister has a worse record of terrorism than all the members of the PLO combined. It is a symptom of the sickness of the state of Israel that it should elect as Prime Minister such a brutal man with such an evil record.
Nothing but evil has resulted in the past for the Israelis and the Palestinians from terrorism and counterterrorism, and nothing but evil will come from it in future. The most obvious result will be the destruction of Israel's own long-term security. Every act of expansion and aggression, every brilliant military suc-

881
cess simply makes this more certain, as does every innocent person killed, injured or made homeless in Lebanon, as does every unarmed demonstrator or bystander shot by Israeli soldiers or settlers on the West Bank. Israel's few remaining friends desert her—Europeans, Americans, many Jewish people among them, and also people particularly important to Israel's future security, Mr. Mubarak and the Egyptians. At the same time the number of Israel's enemies and their bitterness increases, and they now include a growing army of fanatical Moslem fundamentalists, not only in the Arab world but beyond the Arab world.
" Well", say the Israelis, "we can always rely on the United States". So far this has been proved abundantly true. On Palestine, the United States has so far acted simply as Israel's satellite. The Americans go through the motions of protest, but they then protect the Israelis at the United Nations with their veto, and continue their massive unconditional financial and military aid, which alone makes Israel's crimes possible. But even in the United States there are ominous signs for Israel's future security. The gap is steadily widening between Israel's demands on the American Administration and American national interests. American interests require friends in the Arab world, especially in the Gulf. They require unity in the Atlantic Alliance. They require influence in the third world and at the United Nations, and the isolation of the Soviet Union. In all these respects American national interests are being increasingly undermined by their undiscriminating and unconditional support for Israel.
Those who, like myself, have discussed the Palestinian problem over the years with members of Congress, arc aware of an increasing readiness on their part to face the pressures of the Israeli lobby in Washington. Doubts are growing, even inside the American Jewish community, and even inside Israel herself. Jewish people of courage and integrity are speaking out freely. Fewer are emigrating to Israel; more are leaving. Up to half a million Israeli citizens are now living abroad permanently. Already less than 3 per cent. of the population of the Middle East are Israelis, and this proportion is growing smaller. The Arabs are beginning to catch up in education, technology, wealth and military skills. For her own sake, Israel must come to terms with facts. If she continues with her expansionist policies, relying solely on her military superiority and her influence in Washington, she is laying up for herself a terrible reckoning in the future.
There is an alternative. In relation to Palestine, Camp David has been a failure; but in relation to Egypt it was a success. It produced Israeli withdrawal from Sinai, mutual recognition between Egypt and Israel, demilitarisation, and a peace-keeping force including Europeans and Americans. This must now be the pattern for Lebanon and for Palestine. Such a solution would conform with the United Nations Charter, with the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, with the unanimous declaration of the European Community at Venice, and with the views of the moderate Arab States expressed in the Fahd Plan, for which Mr. Arafat expressed his support.
The implications of this solution for Lebanon are
882
that all foreign military forces would be withdrawn and an effective Lebanese Government restored which would seek mutual recognition with Israel. The implication for Palestine is that there would be two Palestinian states, with mutual recognition, with extensive demilitarisation, and a peace-keeping force including Americans and Europeans. In short, it would be a policy of Lebanon for the Lebanese, Israel for the Israelis and a Palestinian state for the Palestinian Arabs.
This is the way to end terrorism and counter-terrorism. Providing a peaceful outlet to the passionate national feelings of the Palestine people offers Israel her only hope of long-term security. We must not let this way forward be blocked by Israel and by Israel's influence in Washington. Not only the rights of the Palestinians, not only the security of Israel herself are at stake, but also major British and Western interests. There is a wide consensus of world opinion in favour of the need for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon and the West Bank, and Israel must now be required to conform with it, if necessary by the use of economic sanctions. Since neither of the big powers is in a position to take the lead, Europe must do so. Let the European Community now call together all the Governments concerned in order to extend the precedent of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty to Lebanon and Palestine. Let Her Majesty's Government take this initiative now not only for the sake of the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples but in the long-term interst of Israel herself.
53 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as recently as 26th May the House debated the Middle East on a Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. All of us who spoke then were concerned about the rising tension in the area, and we paid a good deal of attention to the Geneva Conference, to the Camp David accords, and the Venice Declaration. In a little over three weeks since then the scene has changed completely and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for enabling us to consider the implications of that change.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has given us some statistics. It is not possible today to make a proper appraisal of the full implications of the situation, but one thing is quite clear and that is that if it has been a great military success in terms of the destruction of opposing forces and equipment and in its advance as far as Beirut, it has also been a comprehensive onslaught. I should say now before I proceed further that the sympathy of everyone in the House must go out to the people of the Lebanon, both Moslem and Christian, for the suffering they have endured and are enduring. In the Lebanon, as the House knows, history has produced a unique country and people, and from the time it gained its independence in 1943 the Lebanon, by ingenious constitutional means, preserved a balance between its various religious and ethnic groupings, and achieved stability and prosperity.
I recall a parliamentary visit I paid there with other Members of both Houses after the Six Day War, and of the promise which this co-operation between the differing elements held out for the Lebanon and for the Middle East as a whole. It proved to be a false dawn and the Lebanon, mainly because of its geography, has

883
become the bloody cockpit in a war not of its own seeking. It was in the 1970s that Lebanese progress and peace disintegrated when the PLO made the refugee camps around Beirut into its operational headquarters, and posed the threat to Israel which has existed ever since. In reaction, youth movements and political parties became paramilitary organisations, the terrible civil war of 1974-75 followed and now, what was once a peaceful country is mangled in a ferocious conflict between Israel and the PLO. The world must ensure—and the United States should take the lead in this—that the Lebanese are given all aid to rebuild their country.
The Israelis and the Syrians should leave the Lebanon, and all Lebanese should accept the authority of President Sarkis' new coalition government which has been given a heavy task to perform. Furthermore, the Palestinians have no right to use the Lebanon as a base for attacking Israel; this was made clear in the 1969 Cairo agreement. I make no apology for devoting this time to the Lebanon. I have always sympathised strongly with Israeli aspirations and believe strongly that the Arab countries' failure to give Israel clear and unequivocal recognition is one of the two root causes of the continuing crisis in the Middle East. But I am not sure that the partial devastation of a neighbouring country is the best way to preserve your own country.
This leads me to ask whether Israel, in seeking to inflict a mortal blow on the PLO, is justified in partially destroying its neighbour with appalling loss of innocent civilians. I am bound to say that the answer must be no. Furthermore, was it necessary for Israel to launch such a huge operation—its scale and precision clearly involved careful long-term preparation—merely in order to protect the towns of Galilee from shelling? It is arguable that this could have been achieved by observing the cease-fire and stopping the air raids on Lebanese territory.
The war aims of Israel are not yet clarified, but I hope the flush of victory will not blind them to the possible long-term consequences of their action if they do not also seek to resolve the long-term problems underlying the conflict and also to be magnanimous about it. If the Israeli war aims, as I understand some of them to be, include a demilitarised zone 25 to 28 miles north of their border, this now appears to be a practical possibility. If they include a US peacekeeping force, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has referred, then I suppose that is negotiable. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that. If they include the total destruction of the PLO, that is a more speculative objective.
They may wound the Palestinians grievously—they have already decimated their military capacity—but the Israelis should know better than most nations that you cannot for ever obliterate a people who believe they have a just cause. I profoundly hope that they will not persist in attacks on Beirut. The occupation of an Arab capital city with its attendant humiliation will not help their cause in the longer-term.
There is evidence that these developments are causing increased concern in Israel itself. According to reports there is unease in the Israeli Cabinet, and the Labour Opposition is conducting an inquiry into the conduct of the war. I have seen today a statement from the Israeli Labour Party; it comes from the chairman of
884
the International Department, Mr. Israel Gat. This is interesting enough, I believe, for me to read extracts from it.
The Israeli Labour Party says first:
" Israel must adhere scrupulously to the declared objectives of the ' peace for Galilee' operation.

2. The occupation of Beirut and control over the Lebanese capital must be avoided.

3. The bombing of cities and non-combatant populations must be avoided on both moral and political grounds.

4. Israeli initiated clashes with Syrian troops must be avoided.

5. An overall cease-fire based on reciprocity must he adhered to.

6. There must be support for the establishment of an effective multinational force to ensure calm and stability in Lebanon. The participation of United States units is desirable.

7. The presence of the Israeli Defence Force in Lebanon must be as short as possible.

8. There should be support for the establishment of an independent Lebanese Government with international assistance which does not depend on the Israeli Defence Force.

9. All foreign troops must be withdrawn from Lebanon, leaving Lebanon to the Lebanese.

10. There should be negotiations with Jordan and participation of Palestinian representatives with the aim of coming closer to reaching peace and a political solution to problems which cannot be solved militarily."

That seems to be an admirable statement from the Israeli Labour Party. Israel, under its present Government, has resorted to extreme measures. Mr. Begin would argue that it has been done to protect his people in Galilee and to neutralise the PLO. One asks at this moment whether they have succeeded. The kibbutzim of Galilee are no longer being shelled, but it would be a bold man who would track the consequences of this operation with any degree of certainty and confidence.
For example, does it mean the end of Yassir Arafat and George Habash as leaders, respectively, of the moderate and more extreme wings of the PLO? Some are arguing that if they cease to count, some moderate leaders will emerge with whom it will be possible to make some modest progress towards autonomy on the West Bank. Who can say? The course of history in comparable situations has not led in that direction. The departure of Arafat may not necessarily make things easier; the greater the humiliation, the greater the residual bitterness and the greater the possibilities of hard-line successors.
I believe, therefore, it is necessary that Israel should now halt their advance and agree a final cease-fire. That is the objective of Mr. Habib on behalf of the United States Administration, and we must as a House wish him well in his efforts. The influence of the United States, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, is crucial, and while the reports from Washington at present tend to be confusing, it is clear that they are all profoundly concerned to see the war brought to an end.
I am sure Her Majesty's Government and our European partners will wish to give their support to any initiatives which will make for a permanent settlement. United Nations Resolution 242 and the Camp David accords still remain the best foundations for negotiations. Israel can achieve security in the north by a substantial demilitarised zone, although the manner in which that can be guaranteed must be a subject for detailed talks. At Camp David, Israel in the person of Mr. Begin himself recognised,
" the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people ",

885
and proposed to grant self-government for an interim period to the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza pending negotiations between herself and their representatives on the final status of those areas. Israel must now show a readiness to act on those undertakings.
I must pose a different question, and possibly the most important one of all, and it was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew: What is to happen to the Palestinians in the Lebanon? Where are they to go? Their resettlement on the West Bank would be the most generous response to that question and it would conform to Camp David and the United Nations resolution. The United States, and indeed the West generally, might contribute financially towards that solution. I also hope that President Reagan and President Brezhnev will discuss that possibility when they meet shortly; the Middle East should certainly be high on their agenda. It is very much in the interests of both great powers that the matter be settled now, with a hope of permanence; "stirring it up" will benefit neither the Soviet Union nor the United States.
The effect of the conflict on relations between Egypt and Israel are, as the noble Lord said, also very much in everyone's mind. That new relationship was one of the most hopeful and important developments of our time, and we all hope it will not be fatally impaired. Much will depend on President Mubarak's statemanship at this crucial time.
A small but important additional point: Can the Minister say whether there is any validity in the charge, made in yesterday's Sunday Times leader, that Israel is refusing to allow United Nations agencies to use the food and medicines they have rushed to the Lebanese border? The report said that stores which could not be landed were piling up in Cyprus. I do not suggest that such reports are true, and I have with me a copy of Resolution 510 which, I understand, was passed today by the Security Council, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it available to me. This new United Nations resolution, while underlining previous resolutions along the same lines,
" Calls upon all the parties to the conflict to respect the rights of the civilian populations, to refrain from all acts of violence against those populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviate the suffering caused by the conflict ",
and to make all medical assistance available to those suffering, and I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on that and indicate whether that assistance is getting through.
Finally, while we are aware of the fears of Israel, we must say that war on this scale will not solve her long-term problems. As I said in our last debate, Israel must compliment her undoubted military capacity with diplomatic skills. Furthermore, after launching this terrible war, which has caused so much suffering, she will, I am sure, also show generosity of spirit and a willingness to seek reasonable solutions, as otherwise she will lose many of the friends who have supported her over the last 30 years and whose strong desire is that she should enjoy permanent security and full recognition within acceptable boundaries.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I too warmly welcome the fact that this debate is taking place and I congratulate
886
the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on his initiative. It is a pity that when vital British interests are at stake, as they are in a good many different parts of the world, and certainly not least in the Middle East, Government time is not found occasionally for debates of this importance and they have to take place late at night on an Unstarred Question.
I do not think there can be one single shred of justification for Israel's attack on the Lebanon. It had been planned for many months, perhaps even for years. The PLO provided no military threat whatever to Israel and, as Lord Mayhew reminded us, they showed the utmost restraint throughout the cease-fire period, with not a shot fired, until an Israeli inside the Lebanon drove on a mine and was killed. He had no right to be in the Lebanon, and the immediate reaction was the first and very damaging and powerful raid on Beirut. The excuse—if that is the right word for this major conflagration—was the wicked attempt to assassinate Israel's ambassador in London, a man whom I knew and liked and respected, and as a result of that, this colossal invasion and occupation has taken place.
In that context, we should remind ourselves that it has for a long time been the claim of many leading Zionists that southern Lebanon should he part of Eretz Israel, or Greater Israel. It was the dream as long ago as 1896 of Herzl; at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference the Zionists put it forward as a positive claim; in 1948, Ben Gurion, then Prime Minister, wanted the overthrow of Moslem supremacy in Lebanon, which he regarded as "artificial" (that was his word) and he proposed that a Christian state should be set up with a southern frontier on the Litani River. Chief of staff Dyan, who died recently, often said that he thought that southern Lebanon should be incorporated in Eretz Israel, and proof of that is to be found in Moshe Sharett's diary, published in 1954. Have they, or have they not, dropped their claim completely?—I do not know.
What are we to think of the American role? To what extent has there been some connivance, even some collusion? We know that Israel's worst excesses are generally met with nothing more strong than a "tut-tut" from the Administration. I certainly agreed with George Ball, whom I saw on television last week, when he said that Israel was the United States' client state, and that enough is enough. He said it twice, and very outspokenly.
Of course the trouble is that successive Administrations have failed to be even-handed; perhaps this one more than any other. That reminds me that when I was talking to a very senior member of the present Administration I asked him how he would like to see American policy developing towards the Arab-Israel dispute. He said, "I would like to see it, to put it quite simply, even-handed". He looked round over his shoulder and said, "My goodness! I mustn't say that; that's anti-Israel". That says just about everything.
The casualties have already been mentioned. There have been appalling casualties; at least 10,000 dead and 14,000 wounded, which is almost certainly a considerable underestimate. Some "Peace for Galilee "! Most of those killed and wounded were civilians with no connection whatsoever with the PLO,

887
and I should say that at least half were quite certainly women and children. This really is terrible. The sheer ferocity of the slaughter is horrific.
We heard in an earlier speech about the need for medical supplies and humanitarian relief generally for the very large numbers of refugees, of whom there are certainly several hundred thousand. No one seems to know, no one can know exactly, or even roughly, how many there are. I know that my noble friend is in very close touch with Beirut, and therefore may I ask him whether it is true that the United Nations' agencies, in particular UNWRA, have been prevented from supplying food and medicines and other disaster relief in the southern Lebanon, prevented from going there at all, and that the Red Cross, which has been operating in the south of Lebanon, has been prevented from entering Beirut? If those things are true, they are utterly inexcusable and unbelievably callous, and they should be condemned out of hand.
I should like to say a few words about the supply ship from Cyprus, which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, mentioned. Is it really true that it sailed twice and was turned hack twice, and that the second time the reason given was that there were mines off Beirut? The mines were laid by Israel, Israel knows where the mines are, and that could be no reason for turning back a supply ship with medical supplies. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us whether or not that point has been confirmed.
We read in The Times that doctors and nurses working in the Red Crescent hospital in Sidon have been arrested. Then there is the question of censorship, which is also profoundly worrying. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has already mentioned it and so I shall not touch on it further. There is a very clear attempt on the part of Israel to conceal from the world the full horror of what has happened.
In particular I want to ask a question about Israel's prisoners. Do we know, have we any idea, how many prisoners there are? I cannot exactly call them prisoners of war, since I think that technically perhaps they are not. Do we know how many they are? Do we know in what conditions they are being kept? Was it true, as I read in the Guardian, I think it was, or it might have been The Times, that many of them are blindfolded and tied up with barbed wire? Is that true?—I do not know. Where are they, and in what conditions are they being kept? What is being done about this situation from the Red Cross point of view?
Under this heading I should also like to say a few words about the 25-mile demilitarised zone, which apparently is Israel's condition for withdrawing, if it is going to withdraw. Why is the demilitarised zone to be only north of the Lebanese-Israel border? The attacks have taken place from south of the border, and I have no doubt that Palestinians, even if they are disarmed, will be remaining in South Lebanon. They do not want this to happen again. It seems to me that if there are to be demilitarised zones, they should be on both sides of the border, automatically; but nobody ever seems to mention it. I think that the same thing happend before (did it not?) when we had the tripartite guarantee and Israel refused to allow observers to be on its side of the border. I see the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, nodding his head; I think that he
888
was at the Foreign Office at the time. Obviously, that does not really provide Israel or her neighbours with the protection which they need. So if they are along a border, demilitarized zones should automatically be on both sides.
I shall be very grateful to my noble friend if when he replies he can comment on some of the points that I have raised. I know in fact that in terribly trying conditions our ambassador in Beirut has been doing splendid work, showing great courage, and doing his utmost to keep the Foreign Office informed.?
But how strange it is that world reaction to this really shocking affair has been so muted. I cannot help thinking that, had any other country behaved in this way, there would have been a colossal outcry, a colossal outcry. I suppose it is not really a very good idea drawing parallels between the bombing of Beirut as a result of the attack on the Israeli ambassador and what we might have done when our ambassador in Dublin was murdered, but I think it is a fairly good parallel to consider the consequences had we bombed Dublin as a result. After all, the Irish Government refuse to allow us to extradite leading members of the IRA who are accused of murder and are badly wanted. Of course, it is absolutely inconceivable that we should have thought of doing any such thing, but I do not think it is a bad parallel. ft certainly provides food for thought.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, also asked about economic sanctions. I was in another place last week when the Prime Minister said that she thought they were "very unlikely". I am not much of a sanctions man, and generally speaking they are likely to be pretty ineffective, but they are at least a gesture of some kind. What is more, it is not really only sanctions, because there is an EEC trade agreement with Israel which gives Israel most-favoured-nation treatment for many of her exports to the Community. I am thinking of, for example, oranges and other tropical fruits which are in a condition of considerable over-supply already in the EEC. Are we bound to go on giving Israel that particular advantage? I saw in the newspapers recently that the financial protocol to provide Israel with a 40 million dollar loan has been temporarily held up—"postponed", I think is the word. If that is so, I should certainly be grateful for confirmation of it.
My Lords, Israel cannot destroy the spirit of a proud people, the Palestinian people, of whom there are more than 4 million, by attempting to smash the PLO in the Lebanon. It will not work. It will only stiffen their resolve to have what they are entitled to —self-determination. That demand, that desire, cannot be quenched by this behaviour; and I think the reaction on the West Bank, occupied by Israel with more than 100 Israeli settlements, is bound to be a very strong one when they recover from the shock.
The Lebanon, as I see it, is a reflection of the whole miserable and unhappy dispute in the Middle East: Moslem against Christian, Arab against Israeli, Sunni Muslim against Shia Muslim, Fundamentalist against Conservative—name it, it is all happening in poor little Lebanon. It is a kind of cockpit of the whole of the Middle East, and it is all stoked up, of course, by great power rivalries. These, I know, are glimpses of the obvious, but it indeed shows not only what a

889
tragedy it is but how incredibly difficult it is going to be to solve it.
Lebanese unity, as I see it, is difficult enough to achieve again without all this, but it will be impossible while Israeli and Syrian armed forces and impotent United Nations forces are in the country. The Palestinians, I presume, will surely remain there, but on an entirely different basis. I certainly cannot imagine where else they are going to go. Up to 1975 the Lebanon managed remarkably well. Somehow, everybody managed to work together. They could do so again, I think, given the chance, difficult as it will be, but things will never be the same again.
Israel's invasion, I think, amounts to a terrible setback to the prospects of peace in the Middle East. Peace will never come about until the Arab-Israel dispute is settled by Israel withdrawing behind the pre-1967 cease-fire line (roughly speaking, anyhow) on the West Bank, in exchange for the security which they are entitled to, for which they quite naturally long, and which I want to see them have. This was the straightforward suggestion made by Senator Percy, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But, instead of that, which we really cannot anticipate in the foreseeable future, I fear, I think it is perfectly possible that Israel now plans to annex the whole of the West Bank and Gaza in an attempt to pre-empt peace talks. That really would be an even bigger setback. I just pray that that does not happen; that they can somehow be persuaded how wrong it would be.
The Palestinian people, my Lords, must again have their own home in what is left of their own land, including, of course, East Jerusalem. Israeli withdrawal from the whole of Lebanon is absolutely essential, as I see it, if there is to be a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. If it does not take place—and here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—I greatly fear that Israel's arrogant and aggressive behaviour will be recorded in history as having sown the seeds of her own destruction. I firmly believe that.
Finally, I think it is absolutely essential that the British Government, in co-operation with our partners in the European Community, should use every scrap of influence they have—and it is very great—to bring America to be more even-handed and to draw her into the search for a lasting peace on the broad lines of the Venice Declaration, which I think lays down the guidelines excellently. We must do this if we are to preserve our honour and protect our vital interests. So I hope and pray that, when my noble friend Lord Belstead comes to reply this evening, he will be able to tell us that, in spite of this very grave setback, energetic steps to find a lasting, peaceful settlement will continue.
9.20 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, like all of as here tonight, I offer my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for tabling this Unstarred Question which we would all agree, whether or not we are connected with the Middle East, is of immense importance. May I say that, like the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Chelwood, I have been in touch with the Lebanon for 40 years—slightly more in fact—and to see the destruction, loss of life and damage to buildings in that lovely land means that I
890
can only address your Lordships under the strain of some emotion. But obviously one must not speak from an emotional or a personal standpoint in this House, and I shall want to make as factual and objective a speech as I can.
My Lords, the hour is late and I will not weary your Lordships with a dissertation on Lebanese history, but I think it is relevant to say that the Lebanon has a history which extends more than 2,500 years; in fact Herodotus reported that in 2574 the Phoenicians had established themselves in Tyre—a city so terribly destroyed recently. The Egyptians invaded in 1600 BC and were followed by the Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, Arabs and French. I think that I can assure your Lordships that in all these invasions there has never been such terrible destruction as that wrought by the Israelis in the last few days.
I should also like to direct your Lordships' attention particularly to the Christian communities in the Lebanon, since this subject we are discussing this evening is concerned with the reintegration and the re-establishment of this terribly shattered state. Here, some of your Lordships may be interested to know that the first Christian communities established themselves in the Lebanon way back in 640 AD. St. Maroun established a little church and a community in one of those lovely valleys which run down from the Cedars which some of your Lordships know. In considering the Christians in the Lebanon, we must remember that it is not only the Maronites. We hear so much of militant Maronites, aggresive Palestinians and bellicose Israelis: but we must bear in mind—and this is of crucial importance—that the greater part of the Lebanon population and particularly the Christians are very pacific. The Greek Orthodox in particular, who amount to something like one-tenth of the total population, have remained aloof from all the fighting and what a wonderful contribution many of them have made. Some of your Lordships may not be aware that Philip Habib is a Greek Orthodox of Lebanese origin. We must also remember that the Lebanon is a country which has been immortalised in some of the most lovely psalms in our Psalter. It was well known to Christ, the coast of Tyre and Sidon.
But, my Lords, we cannot dwell in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has indicated—and I agree fully with him—that the Israeli reaction has been far, far greater than justified. The Israelis say that they are following the principle of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. But it has not been one tooth for a tooth and one eye for an eye; it has been a whole mouthful of teeth for one tooth and three or four eyes for one eye. If I may continue the biblical language, it is as if the Israelis have seen their field full of tares and had gone in, rooted up the tares—and how much good wheat they have rooted up with it!
It is very important to bear in mind that this Israeli aggression against the Lebanon is not something new. I was stationed in Beirut in the early days of 1970–71, and I can remember many occasions on which Israeli planes came over, often on a Saturday afternoon when one was bathing on the coast. One saw the planes and the terrible destruction—aimed at the Palestinian camps and the villages. Yes, that was their aim. And how good the Israeli aim is and how terrible the destruction

891
of the local population. I am reminded of that wonderful couplet of Milton's:
" Avenge, oh Lord, thy slaughter'd saints whose bones lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold."
And how many Palestinian bones, how many Lebanese bones are scattered on those mountains, many of them saints, and how cold those mountains are! But if instead of "Alpine" we substitute the words "Palestinian" or "Lebanese", the couplet does not scan. Instead of that beautiful sonority of Milton's we get a harsh, discordant jangle. That surely is the tragedy of Lebanon today. The lovely elements of that country do not fit: there is something harsh and discordant about it.
What can we do about it? This, of course, is the essence of the Question we are considering tonight. I would not venture to offer a clearcut solution. I think most of you who have studied this problem will agree that a large Christian state must continue as a Maronite state based on Juni, including most of Djebal, Lebanon and some of the coast. That must remain. There will then perhaps be under optimum conditions one or possibly two Moslem states, and one would hope very much that the Palestinians would join forces with the Moslems. Then we have the Druze, They would perhaps form a little state on their own. All this might well be incorporated in some sort of federation. This is very inadequate thinking, but it probably provides some basis for consideration.
The most terrible aspect of this problem, I think, is the ghastly crescendo of fear and hatred which has developed. I have seen it develop over the years. Fear, indeed, it is. I have seen fear on the faces of the villagers in those villages of Southern Lebanon—fear which haunts every house and which stalks every street. Fear: and what about hatred? What indeed about hatred, my Lords?—hatred among the young people, a hatred which one finds in the training of these young guerrillas, the Ashbal or "wolf cubs" as they are called, the Palestinians young boys of 11 and 12 or even younger, trained and brought up to kill, dedicated to death and destruction. To some extent we get the same situation on the Israeli side with the young Sebras, who are also trained in the same way. So much hatred, my Lords, and so much violence; and how little compassion, how little consideration there has been on both sides.
That again is another terrible problem. In all my years of discussing this question with Arabs and Israelis, I have never met a single one who can really understand the sufferings of the other. And how much have the Palestinians suffered through the presence of Israel, with the gradual extension of the settlements, a great octopus—not the "dear Octopus" but a great octopus gradually engulfing their lovely land. And do not let us forget that the Palestinians lost land in the wars of 1948, 1956 and 1967.
What is so sad is that both Arabs and Jews have so much in common, as I am sure your Lordships are aware—with a common semitic origin, languages which are very close to each other and the two religions converging in many ways—and above all, the two peoples have suffered—the Jews have suffered in their Diaspora and the Palestinians have also suffered in the last 60 years. As the psalmist said:
892
" By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down…and wept, when we remembered Zion."
But the Palestinians, they do not sit down and weep; they stand up and fight.
Is there any hope of reconciliation? Is there any hope of getting together? I would say that there are possibilities. May I for one brief minute draw your Lordships' attention to an area of which, probably, few of you are aware. I am speaking of the Golan Heights; that mountainous area on the frontier of Syria which was annexed by the Israelis in 1967. However much the Israelis may say that in their conquest they are trying to restore the frontiers of biblical Israel as given to them by God, no one would ever maintain that God gave them the Golan Heights. When they occupied the Golan Heights, there were something like 100,000 Syrian Druze living there. I am told that there are now about 13,000. The cities and villages were destroyed, the people were killed and many fled.
But—and this is the point I am coming to—over the last years, according to a very interesting report which we have had from a French correspondent, the two coummnities have managed to establish a modus vivendi. They managed to live together in reasonable harmony until a few months ago, when the Israelis insisted that every Druze inhabitant of the Golan Heights should take out an Israeli nationality paper. Whether or not that correspondent was exaggerating, I cannot say, but the report indicates that these Druze were forced to remain locked up in houses for days on end, and still their spirit did not break. We must be hopeful that some possibility of mutual understanding will eventually emerge. I would ask the Minister that, when Her Majesty's Government are considering this terrible problem, they bring to bear all the knowledge, all the understanding and all the compassion for such matters for which British Governments have for so long been famed.
9.32 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like very much to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for introducing this Unstarred Question. On about 10th April, Sheikh Yamani visited London, and he said in my hearing that he was worried that Israel would use the crisis of the Falkland Islands as a cover to attack Lebanon. I always thought that Sheikh Yamani was a wise man.
Israel is a special country. It is unique among States, in that it bases its right of existence on the claim that God gave the descendants of Abraham and Isaac the title deeds of their houses some 5,000 years ago in an office in Ur of the Chaldees. Israel is a special country, in that it has acted as a haven for Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, Englishmen, Baghdadis, Yemenis, Moroccans and others who believed in this obscure property deal of 5,000 years ago. In a lighter vein, Israel once a year claims to be part of Europe and joins in the Eurovision Song Contest. Why not Syria, why not Jordan, why not Turkey? Israel is a special country.
I would also suggest to your Lordships that the state of Israel has benefited quite enormously—and I ask your Lordships to mark well that I say "the state of Israel"—from the horrified reaction of Western

893
civilisation to the disgusting deeds of Adolf Hitler between 1933 and 1945. Western Christianity and Western civilisation has salved its conscience for antisemitism and anti-Jewish behaviour at the expense of the Arabs, who for 1,400 years had shown no signs at all of anti-semitism. As your Lordships are aware, in Granada and in Damascus Jews rose to the highest possible offices of state in the great Arab empires.
To establish this special state, this island of democratic tolerance in the Middle East, its present leaders, Begin and Sharon, and the Foreign Ministers have been involved in acts of tyranny, violence, murder and terrorism which, because they were carried out with such ruthless efficiency, have been successful up to a point. Let your Lordships' mind go back to the late 1940s. Let them remember those British sergeants hanging by their necks in an orange grove in Beer Sheba with their bodies booby trapped so that somebody else would be killed when they were cut down. Who did that? Begin. Who was responsible for the massacre at Deir Yassan when several hundred innocent Palestinian women and children were slaughtered so that others would flee from Israel? Friend Begin. Who was responsible for the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem? Friend Begin. Sharon set up his terrorist organisation, 101, and he happily slaughtered women and children over the border in Jordan. Did God give the title deeds of Palestine to Begin and Sharon for that sort of behaviour? Quoting President Reagan, Begin spoke on United States television about the need to stamp out terrorism. What hypocrisy.
President Reagan, in his speech to both Houses of Parliament, made much of the point that refugees flee the Communist world for the freedom of the West. According to George Ball, the United States gives Israel 7 million dollars a day, plus unlimited military assistance. Is the United States President not aware of those who have fled his country's over-bumptious client? Is he not aware of the dispersion going on daily of the Palestinians on the West Bank? Is he not aware that, when the West Bankers riot because their universities are closed, or because their farms are confiscated, or because their houses are blown up, the soldiery of what a Member of your Lordships' House in another debate called" poor little Israel "fire at children's legs with ball ammunition? No one appoints the noble Lord, Lord Scarman, to inquire into those riots. Nobody calls for the community policing of Hebron, Nazareth or Bethlehem. Israel's international behaviour leaves something to be desired. There has been atomic co-operation with South Africa. Israel and Syria have been in unholy alliance, selling arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. She and Libya—what friends!—are strongly suspected of selling arms to Argentina since 2nd April.
Israel claims special status. Let her earn it. Her present response to the legitimate nationalism of the Palestinians is to kill 14,000, to injure tens of thousands, to make hundreds of thousands homeless in the Lebanon. She has devastated those ancient Phoenician ports of Tyre and Sidon. She has refused Red Cross admission, except through Tel Aviv, where they generously waive the landing charges on the aeroplanes. That is not how to earn special satus.
Unless and until Israel and America realise that the
894
root cause of Middle Eastern instability is the displacement of the Palestinians, and not Russian ambitions, the Middle East will be a tinder box. Thank goodness the Russians appear to have acted with great restraint during the recent crisis. Had they moved troops to protect Syria—which would, I suspect, have been America's reaction towards Israel—then the world would have been a truly dangerous place.
Israel must be restrained and America educated, not only for the peace of mind of Europe but for the sake of America's interests and also, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has said, for Israel's ultimate survival. Nobody who attacks the behaviour of Begin, Sharon and their fellows is in any way suggesting that the Israelis should be driven into the sea. All one is suggesting is that not only should they live their own lives in peace and quiet but they have got to think of others at the same time. If America does not realise that, her standing in the Arab world will be ruined and friendly regimes will be destabilised, thus allowing the Russians and the fanatical Shi'a Fundamentalists access to the oil producing countries. Is that what they want?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in these very few sentences, I shall not make a speech in the ordinary sense of the word—
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I believe it was arranged that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would speak, and this was agreed between both Front Benches.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I in turn apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, if I have interrupted any speech he was about to make. I do not think that in your Lordships' House I have ever appreciated more than tonight the fact that I was trained as a laywer. I say that only because so often I have found in the course of my career that if I listened only to counsel for the prosecution I would find myself coming to a wrong verdict. By the grace of God, in the justice of this country, which has set an example to and taught the world a lesson in the principles of justice, there is a principle of audi ateram partem; hear the other side. I have listened to a series of speeches which have contained one side of an argument without the other side being heard at all.
There is no doubt in your Lordships' mind that I speak as a Jew. Therefore, in defending the Jewish people and the Jewish tradition and principles, I do so with a great degree of pride. They happen to be the people who taught the noble Earl opposite, if he would have listened to them, the laws of peace, of understanding one's neighbour and of loving one's neighbour. Therefore, before one starts indicting a people and the state of Israel, instead of using mocking terms about title deeds and so on one might at least have been temperate in one's language.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, attacked Mr. Begin. I am not a supporter of Mr. Begin; I am no lover of Mr. Begin. But the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was attacking Governments of Israel from the very start, when Begin was not the Prime Minister. He knows and I know that we have had clashes before, at the Oxford Union, with criticism of Israel the whole time

895
from the noble Lord. He is entitled to his views. This is a free country. I have never heard the noble Earl who has just spoken say a good word for Israel or any of its leaders—Begin or not a Begin.
May I just for a moment, without trying to justify slaughter, make some points. I do not know whether any one of your Lordships has ever been in the midst of a German symposium as I have been, trying to justify and understand the slaughter of millions of civilians in Dresden and Hamburg, in Coventry and Hiroshima. War breeds that sort of thing; that is why war is so horrible in all its aspects. There has to be a little understanding of history. In 1948 there was a decimated people, after the world had looked on. With 6 million dead, with over 1 million children among them, the world thought that it owed to those who were left some little bit of homeland, without going into title deeds. Countries were unwilling to accept them—including this country, which had a fine reputation for the refugees it took but could not take and did not want any more, and neither did the United States of America.
Talking of cruelty, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, may remember the incident of the exodus, with many of them being sent back in ships. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, ought to remember, and sometimes I wonder whether he feels any guilt in that context.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord is not attributing to the British Navy the extremely cruel and brutal behaviour of the Israeli Army today.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not quite follow the relevance of that remark, but no doubt the noble Lord will explain it to me at some other time.
My Lords, that was followed by a vote of the United Nations. The Arab countries were members of the United Nations. They refused to accept that verdict. It may have been a wrong verdict—the noble Earl thinks it is wrong—but it was a verdict of this country, of the United States and even of the Soviet Union. And so the little state started as the world's pupil in the fact that you have to wage war in order to live and defend yourselves, a principle admitted by the United Nations, and one of which we have just properly taken advantage in regard to our own battle in the Falkland Islands. So they went to war and the world pitied them. They fought on their own. It was right that they should. And the miracle was that they won.
In 1956 came the next war. A dictator called Nasser arose. A British Prime Minister used epithets about Nasser that I assure the noble Earl even bettered his epithets about Begin. And we went to war, this time with the help of Israel as one of our allies against this aggressive dictator.
The next war was in 1967. Then the whole free world was on the side of the little embattled nation, that said to itself, "It may be hopeless; we are attacked on all sides with all the forces imaginable accumulating against us". But in 1967 Israel fought back, and the world thought it an heroic victory. Lands were occupied. All I can say in regard to occupation of lands is that I do not defend the occupation of lands, but that happens to be an individual view of my own; it is not an individual view of statesmen after wars,
896
nor has it been followed in history. Then after that one finds that there is peace with Egypt, with Israel making several sacrifices to do it. I will not go into that.
We now reach the present stage. Does any human being, be he Jew, Christian or Moslem, or be he indeed an agnostic, look with any delight or favour, or say a bravo to a country which manages to inflict the casualties that we have heard about, and properly heard about tonight? But did the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, when he quoted from The Times and other papers, have the fairness or the sense of justice to quote those parts of the Sunday Times and indeed of the Economist which dealt with reports from correspondents on the spot, who said that the Lebanese people themselves had complained to those correspondents very bitterly that the PLO had insisted upon putting guns and ammunition and so on inside and by the side of schools and hospitals? The result was—so Israel reports; but hear the other party—that Israel deliberately suffered casualties or the risk of them in order to try to prevent such places from being attacked, but found in the end that for self-defence what they had to do was to fire at them. The noble Earl was not there; Lord Mayhew was not there. I was not there. Hear the other side, and do not just take the view of one of them.
The whole of this situation has arisen not because of any expansionist dream of Israel and not because of a power-glutted Government, much though I dislike many of the things that that Government are doing and have done; and I have said so, and said so in public and in this House too. Many of the things that Her Majesty's Government have done I have disliked, and I have said that too. And I shall say it, too, if I have to, as a matter of conscience if I ever think that Her Majesty's Government's Opposition does things of which I disapprove—and I will do it humbly.
However, I have been in Galilee. I have seen the children scamper into shelters as rockets came over. I have seen the lack of security in the North and the terror in the North—the terror by night, if the noble Viscount wants to go on quoting scriptures as well he is justified in doing, because he is a great Bible student and I admire him for it. There was a truce, or rather a cease-fire; and still there were intelligence reports of amassing weapons, ammunition, guns and people behind the cease-fire frontier on the other side. Nothing of this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in the course of his address. But again, The Times, the Economist and the Sunday Times have reported from their own correspondents that there are huge ammunition dumps all over the place—underneath refugee camps, in hospitals and everywhere; they reported them as things which they had seen. They have also found records—this was reported in the Sunday Times and other papers—and ample evidence that the PLO had been training and was helping world terrorist organisations which had nothing to do with Palestine at all. I have the sense of justice that says that I want to see those records before I believe it. I do not just accept newspaper reports. But cannot the noble Earl, the noble Lord and others who have spoken, do the same?
Finally—absolutely finally—do not let us mouth hatred and diatribes about the sickness of Israel to elect

897
a Government of this kind. The noble Lord who sits in front of me and who delivered, if I may say so, a most statesmanlike speech, read out what the Opposition—which almost numbers the Government in Israel and has almost defeated them—stands for. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, did not have the fairness to talk about that. But thank heavens! that, in justice, my noble friend was able to acquaint the House with those aims and those objects as announced. Let us all pray. Let us pray for understanding and not hatred and
898
prejudice. Let us try and get a peace with Lebanon for the Lebanese. Who has decimated Lebanon? Who occupied Lebanon? Was it Israel to start with? Was it a force that the Lebanese wanted? I am waiting to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. 1 am sure that there will be some balance in it. I am sure there will be some diplomacy in it. But please, do not indulge in a one-sided debate and think that then you can come to a conclusion and that you have benefited this House by your speeches.
9.54 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, first I must apologise for misunderstanding the arrangements for filling the gap and in these few sentences, which are not a speech, I should like to say that I am not violently pro- or anti-Israel of pro- or anti- the PLO, but I am unashamedly pro-Lebanon, a country I cannot say that I have known well for 40 years like the noble Viscount, but I did live there for a year at the end of the war and I have been there a number of times since. I have over those times visited camps within the city boundary of Beirut and I have appreciated that, as a result of those camps, the authorities in the city of Beirut were not masters of their own destiny. What was happening in those camps I do not know. I was advised by the British Embassy not to go, but my wife and I went all the same. I admit that the atmosphere therein was anything but pleasant.
This Question concerns the integrity of the Lebanon. Over the centuries the Lebanon has had a fragile existence. It has been important to the world because it has been a bridge between East and West, a bridge between the Christian and the Moslem faiths, and it has been important to the Jewish faith too—never more important than it is today. There are other issues today and violence in other parts of the world, but that should not allow us to blur our realisation that the integrity of the Lebanon is important to us all, and that if we forget that we shall all be losers.
9.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, our debate this evening has shown the deep impact made in this country by the tragedy which has overtaken Lebanon.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, to whom we are indebted for this short debate upon his Question, gave a brief description of the appalling loss of human life and the material damage to that beleaguered country. But if there is one point which unites all your Lordships —and there have, of course, been different speeches made in this short debate—it is the wish to see the country of Lebanon at peace.
I should say at the outset that the Government accept that Israel has a legitimate right to security. We utterly condemn the brutal attack on Mr. Argov, who is a highly respected member of the diplomatic community. The police have taken swift and decisive action, and we shall always act firmly in the face of any terrorist attacks.
We condemn unprovoked attacks on Israel. But self-defence is really not credible as the grounds for Israel's full scale and destructive invasion of the sovereign state of Lebanon; particularly an invasion which has had such disastrous consequences for the lives and property of the innocent civilian population.
We have all seen the graphic television pictures of the destruction wrought in Lebanon. It is easy to lose sight in these circumstances of the events of the past four years. But if we are to make progress towards a more stable future for the Lebanon—the objective to which I think all your Lordships join together in agreeing—we must look at the lessons of the past.
Four years ago the Israelis mounted their first invasion of Lebanon. The stated objective then, as now, was to achieve security for Northern Israel by establishing
900
a cordon sanitaire on the Lebanese side of the border. The response of the international community was to establish UNIFIL, the United Nations force. Under the terms of Security Council Resolution 425, that force was to confirm Israeli withdrawal, restore peace and assist the Lebanese Government by ensuring the return of its authority to the area. But UNIFIL was never given the chance to fulfil its mandate on the ground. The withdrawing Israeli forces left their protege, Major Haddad, in control of a substantial enclave within which Israeli troops continued to move freely.
UNIFIL's task of preventing infiltration by armed groups through its lines was never easy. Some have criticised the force on the grounds that it lacked effective means to enforce its will. But this task was from the start made more difficult by the obstruction and harassment it suffered from Major Haddad's forces, including, on a number of occasions, the shelling of the UNIFIL headquarters. None the less, the United Nations force stuck to its task, even though the list of exchanges between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the period between 1978 and 1981 makes depressing reading.
The cease-fire arranged in July 1981 by Mr. Philip Habib has been the subject of much controversy, and has evidently been interpreted differently by the two sides. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that the PLO has had no right to use Lebanese territory as a military base. But I think it is right to bear in mind that, in the nine months or more between the establishment of the cease-fire and the Israeli air attack on 9th May, there was not a single fatality in Israel, or in Israeli-occupied territory, resulting from Palestinian action originating in Lebanon.
Two conclusions I would draw from that brief recital of the story. First, there was an opportunity to build a more effective peace on Israel's northern border by using United Nations forces. But Israel did not take that opportunity. Secondly, Israel tried in 1978 to impose peace by military force. She failed then. There must, I think, be serious doubts about whether she can succeed now. Only a negotiated peace can bring real security, and that peace will have to take account of the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.
The situation on the ground in Lebanon is still fluid. But there are certain fundamental principles which can guide us in contributing to the efforts needed from all sides to ensure that Lebanon emerges from its ordeal strengthened for the future. First, Security Council Resolution 509 calls for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces to the internationally recognised boundary. This surely must be a priority, even though we recognise that it would be neither possible nor desirable to return Lebanon to the status quo which existed before the Israeli invasion. As my noble friend Lord Chelwood said, nothing can be the same again, but we must all try to ensure that Israeli withdrawal leads to real independence and integrity for Lebanon.
A second important principle is that the Lebanese Government must be put in a position to exercise control over the whole country. I think that this message has come across loud and clear to the Government in this debate this evening. Lebanon has for

901
too long served as a battleground for other people's wars. "Lebanon for the Lebanese" should be a slogan which reflects the needs for a Lebanese Government which represents all Lebanese, not simply the Lebanese whose views coincide with those of the Israeli Government.
In looking to the future, we must try to build on UNIFIL's experience over the last four years. Several ideas have been put forward for either an expanded United Nations force or for a separate multinational force. Mr. Habib is continuing his consultations in the region, and we must await the outcome of these before taking decisions on which alternative is likely to serve Lebanon's interests best. But one point is of overriding importance. The Israelis—I repeat it, but I make no apology for repeating it—really must withdraw to the internationally recognised frontiers. There should be no more enclaves under protection in the south beyond the power of the Lebanese Government.
The objectives of the Israeli action seem to have grown as the invasion has progressed. From the creation of a demilitarised zone north of their border, their goal appears to have become the elimination of the PLO as an element in the Middle East equation. I venture to say that I think this is unrealistic. The Palestinian people who, at around 4 million in total, outnumber Israelis, are not simply going to go away; and they have a right to self-determination enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The effect of the military defeat of the PLO may well be to discredit those in the leadership who stood for the path of diplomacy. This surely cannot be what the Israelis intended. The Lebanese crisis has proved once more that there will be no lasting peace in the Middle East without a solution which takes account of the aspirations of the Palestinians, otherwise they will remain a dispossessed people, forced from country to country in the Middle East and inevitably a source of tension and instability.
The worst aspect of any war is the human suffering which it leaves behind. The Government have acted swiftly to make available emergency aid worth almost a quarter of a million pounds to the various relief agencies who are working to the limit of their abilities in the most difficult conditions in the Lebanon, and we are also contributing to the European Community effort, which amounts in total at the moment to about two and a half million pounds. We continue to receive reports that the Israelis are not facilitating the smooth flow of emergency supplies to the Lebanon.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether relief aid was getting through. A week ago, on 14th June, the Belgian presidency of the European Community met with the Israeli ambassador and, on behalf of the Ten, invited the Government of Israel to give the following assurances: That Israel will apply the relevant Geneva Conventions, especially as regards prisoners; that Israel will admit international relief organisations to the territory which its forces have occupied and will facilitate their work; that Israel will similarly admit and give normal facilities to representatives of the media; and that Israel recognises both the sovereign state of Lebanon and the international frontier between Lebanon and Israel. Although, to be perfectly fair, I can say that I know that ambassadors of the Ten
902
have been received by the Israeli Government in Tel Aviv, I am bound to say that no satisfactory reply has been received to those questions.
It is because no satisfactory replies have been received that I am unable to answer many of the detailed questions which my noble friend Lord Chelwood put to me. However, I would reply to two direct questions he asked. The first was whether the International Committee of the Red Cross was being able to operate in the Lebanon, and the answer to that is, so far as I know, yes. Secondly, on the other hand, what about the United Nations agencies? The answer to that is, no, and that includes UNWRA, despite Security Council Resolution 512, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred, which specifically calls on all the parties not to hamper the humanitarian responsibilities of the United Nations and its agencies. My noble friend asked whether it was true that a supply ship from Cyprus had been turned back, because the ship was unable to get through. I am afraid I am unable to give the information which my noble friend seeks on that.
A word about the position of the British community in Lebanon. Their safety has been a primary concern for us throughout the fighting. We have made contingency plans for their evacuation. A British merchant ship has been chartered and is standing by in Cyprus ready to assist. At present, full-scale evacuation does not seem necessary. Meanwhile, the ambassador has advised British subjects to move from west to east Beirut, and we are watching developments very carefully. We hope that as a result of Mr. Habib's efforts, the present imperfect cease-fire will be transformed into a full cessation of hostilities.
The present tragic conflict is but the latest of the bloody encounters of the region. Lasting peace will be achieved only through a negotiated settlement. As a necessary first step, we have continued to urge the PLO to make clear that it is ready, as part of a settlement, to accept Israel's right to live in peace. But we must continue to work for Israeli recognition that the Palestinian people have their right to self-determination, the essential principles of the Venice Declaration.
In the Statement of 9th June, the Ten also said they are ready to assist in bringing the parties concerned to accept measures intended to decrease tension, re-establish confidence and facilitate a negotiated solution. On the success of that objective rests not only the territorial integrity of Lebanon but wider prospects for security and peace.

Southern Water Authority Bill
The Examiner's certificate that the further standing order applicable has been complied with was ordered to lie on the Table.
(formerly Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited Bill [H.L.])
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.